download | europa - europa - european union website, the

SAFEGE Ingénieurs Conseils 1

European Development Fund

Framework Contract Beneficiaries Lot 6

« Consultancy for the preparation of the CountryEnvironment Profile of the Kingdom of Lesotho»

Specific Contract n° 2011/279247

17/09/2012

Final ReportFinal Version

This project is funded bythe European Union

A Project implemented byConsortium SAFEGE

ii Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

This report is financed by the European Union and is presented by SAFEGE for the NationalAuthorising Officer, Lesotho, and the European Union Delegation. It does not necessarily reflectthe opinion of the NAO or the European Union.

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile iii

COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILEOF LESOTHO

June, 2012

Author:

Juan Palerm (Team Leader)

with contributions from:Sechoocha Makhoalibe and Peter Nuttall

iv Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................xi

1. Introduction................................................................................................... 1

2. State of the Environment ............................................................................... 12.1 Geophysical Environment ................................................................................................................. 1

2.1.1 Location, geography and climate ................................................................................................. 12.1.2 Water resources.................................................................................................................................... 22.1.3 Air quality ................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Biophysical Environment .................................................................................................................. 72.2.1 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................. 72.2.2 Forests ....................................................................................................................................................... 92.2.3 Rangelands............................................................................................................................................102.2.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................................................11

2.3 Socio-economic Context .................................................................................................................. 122.3.1 Government and administrative structure.............................................................................122.3.2 Population and basic development indicators .....................................................................132.3.3 Water supply and sanitation ........................................................................................................142.3.4 Energy......................................................................................................................................................152.3.5 Waste production and management.........................................................................................162.3.6 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................162.3.7 Industry...................................................................................................................................................18

2.4 Vision 2020 and the National Strategic Development Plan.............................................. 182.5 Environmental policies and planning........................................................................................ 202.6 Institutional and regulatory framework for environmental management ................ 22

2.6.1 General environmental management.......................................................................................222.6.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system................................................................242.6.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ..........................................................................252.6.4 Water management (water use and water quality)..........................................................252.6.5 Provision of Water and Sanitation.............................................................................................272.6.6 Biodiversity and protected areas................................................................................................282.6.7 Forests .....................................................................................................................................................282.6.8 Wetlands.................................................................................................................................................292.6.9 Air quality and noise.........................................................................................................................292.6.10 Solid and hazardous waste management ............................................................................292.6.11 Climate change .................................................................................................................................302.6.12 Land management and land degradation control...........................................................30

3 Implications of climate change ...................................................................... 32

4 Integration of environment and climate change in key sectors....................... 344.1 Water....................................................................................................................................................... 344.2 Mining ..................................................................................................................................................... 344.3 Agriculture and forestry.................................................................................................................. 354.4 Energy..................................................................................................................................................... 354.5 Transport............................................................................................................................................... 354.6 Health...................................................................................................................................................... 36

5 Donor cooperation from an environmental perspective................................. 365.1 European Union.................................................................................................................................. 36

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile v

5.2 Other donors ........................................................................................................................................ 40

6 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................... 426.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 426.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 49

6.2.1 Sectors and areas of support under 11th EDF........................................................................496.2.2 Water sector support........................................................................................................................566.2.3 Environmental integration in the EU Delegation ...............................................................60

Appendix 1 Environmental maps......................................................................... 61

Appendix 2 References ....................................................................................... 67

Appendix 3 Key environment-related legislation ................................................. 73

Appendix 4: Donor projects/programmes on environment and climate change ... 75

Appendix 5: List of stakeholders consulted.......................................................... 82

Appendix 6: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Screening for a sectorsupport to the water sector ................................................................................ 88

Appendix 7: Synthesis of recommendations and indicators ................................. 92

Appendix 8: Study methodology ......................................................................... 94

Appendix 9: Consultants’ itinerary ...................................................................... 95

Appendix 10: CV of the consultants..................................................................... 96

Appendix 11: ToR for the CEP.............................................................................. 97

vi Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µ Micrometre

µg Micrograms

AAP Africa Adaptation Programme for Climate Change

ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific

AF Action Fiche

AfDB African Development Bank

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ASAP Adaptation of Small-scale Agriculture Production project

AU Animal Unit

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

CBEP Capacity Building in Economic Planning

CBO Community-Based Organisation

CC Climate change

CEDAMA Committee on Environmental Data Management

CEP Country Environmental Profile

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

cm Centimetres

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e CO2 equivalent

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CoW Commissioner of Water

CRS Catholic Relief Services

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSP Country Strategy Paper

DA District Administrator

DDCC District Development Coordination Committee

DDNSP Deepening Decentralisation and Non-State Actors Support Programme

DDP Deepening Decentralisation Programme

DoE Department of Environment

DMA Disaster Management Authority

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRWS Department of Rural Water Supply

DWA Department of Water Affairs

€ Euros

EC Electrical conductivity

EC European Commission

ECC Environmental Coordinating Committee

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile vii

EDF European Development Fund

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EP Energy Policy

ESMU Environmental and Social Management Unit

EU Environmental Unit

EU European Union

EUD European Union Delegation

EWS Early Warning System

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FULL Families Unite for Livelihoods in Lesotho project

FY Fiscal Year

GA Grazing Association

GBS General Budget Support

GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance

GCM Global Circulation Model

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Fund

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIZ German International Cooperation

GNI Gross National Income

GoL Government of Lesotho

ha Hectares

HDI Human Development Index

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

IAS Invasive Alien Species

IDA International Development Association

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFC International Finance Corporation

IFR Instream Flow Requirements

IPCC Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change

ISWMS Integrated Solid Waste Management System

ITP Integrated Transport Project

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

JBS Joint Basin Survey

km Kilometres

km2 Squared kilometres

kW Kilowatts

viii Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

LAA Land Administration Authority

LDC Least Developed Country

LDHS Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey

LEA Lesotho Environment Authority

LEC Lesotho Electricity Company

LHDA Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

LHWP Lesotho Highlands Water Project

LIP Lesotho Irrigation Project

LLWSU Lesotho Lowlands Water Supply Unit

LMS Lesotho Meteorological Service

LREBRE Lesotho Renewable Energy-Based Rural Electrification

LSAP Lesotho Sustainability Assessment Project

LVAC Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee

LWP Lesotho Woodland Project

LWSP Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy

LWSU Lowlands Water Supply Unit

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

M€ Million Euros

MAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

masl Meters above sea level

MAR Mean Annual Runoff

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MDTP Maloti-Drakensberg Trans-frontier Conservation and Development Project

m3 Cubic metres

MDWSP Metolong Dam Water Supply Programme

MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreements

MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning

MFLR Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation

MHSW Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

MICA Mountain Integrated Conservation Agriculture in Lesotho project

MLGC Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship

mm Millimetres

Mm3 Million cubic metres

MMR Maternal Mortality Rate

MNR Ministry of Natural Resources

MPWT Ministry of Public Works and Transport

MRC Managed Resource Committee

MT Metric Tonnes

MTEC Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile ix

MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework

MW Megawatts

MWWP Maseru Wastewater Project

NAO National Authorising Officer

NAP National Action Plan to Implement Agenda 21

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action

NAPFS National Action Plan for Food Security

NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan

NEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NEC National Environmental Council

NEP National Environmental Policy

NES National Environment Secretariat

NFP National Forestry Policy

NFSP National Food Security Policy

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NIP National Indicative Programme (EU)

NIP National Implementation Programme

NLUP National Land Use Policy

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NO3 Nitrates

NRM Natural Resources Management

NRRP National Range Resources Policy

NSA Non-State Actors

NSA-SP Non-State Actors Sector Programme

NSDP National Strategic Development Plan

NSWCP National Soil and Water Conservation Policy

ORASECOM The Orange-Senqu River Commission

OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children

pH Hydrogen potential

PM10 Particulate Matter under 10µ

PO4 Phosphates

POP Persistent Organic Pollutant

PPP Public-Private Partnership

PPP$ Purchasing Power Parity

PPSU Policy Planning and Strategy Unit

PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy

PRSB Poverty Reduction Support Budget

PSIP Public Sector Investment Programme

RBA Rapid Biological Assessment

RMA Resources Management Association

x Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

RMD Range Management Division

RSA Republic of South Africa

RWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

SADC Southern African Development Community

SASS4 South Africa Scoring System 4

SBS Sector Budget Support

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

s Second

SFCP Social Forestry and Conservation Project

SFP Social Forestry Project

SFR State Forest Reserve

SLM Sustainable Land Management

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

SPSP Sector Policy Support Programme

TA Technical Assistance

TAPs Technical and Administrative Provisions

TCF Technical Cooperation Facility

TDS Total dissolved solids

TED Technology for Economic Development

TSPIRSP Transport Sector Policy and Institutional Reform Support Programme

UES Unified Extension Service

UNCCD United Nations Convention on Combatting Desertification

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO MAB United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Man and Biodiversity(Programme)

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD United States Dollars

VIP Ventilation Improved Pit Latrines

WASA Water and Sewerage Authority

WASCO Water and Wewerage Company

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organisation

WFP World Food Programme

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

yr Year

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroduction

Under European Union (EU) policy, the European Commission (EC) has an obligation tointegrate the environment in all phases of its development cooperation. According to the ECGuidelines for Integration of Environment and Climate Change in Development Cooperation (2009), the maininstrument for environmental integration into the programming phase is the CountryEnvironmental Profile (CEP). The EU delegation (EUD) in Lesotho will shortly start preparingits programming for the 11th European Development Fund (EDF) covering the 2014-2020period, to which this CEP will contribute.

The CEP provides a general overview of the state of the environment in Lesotho, including abrief description of the pressures and trends; it gives an overview of the policy, institutional andlegislative framework for environmental protection; and provides an overview of donor activitiesin relation to the environment in general, and EC activities in environment and environmentalmainstreaming in particular. Finally it identifies the key environmental concerns in the countryand makes recommendations as to how the EUD could better integrate the environment in itsdevelopment cooperation under the 11th EDF, be it addressing key environmental issues directly,and/or through better environmental mainstreaming in other sectors.

This CEP was prepared over the April-July, 2012 period by a team of two consultants1. CEPpreparation was based on: (i) a comprehensive literature review, including an analysis of policyand legislative documents; (ii) bilateral semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders inLesotho; (iii) site visits2; and (iv) a stakeholders’ workshop to provide debriefing of findings andexplore opportunities for the EU to address key environmental concerns identified within the11th EDF.

In preparing recommendations to the EUD various key aspects are taken into consideration,including: alignment with the Government’s development policies; adequacy of the nationalpolicy, institutional and legislative framework to adequately address key environmental concerns;and coordination with other development partners (donors).

Key environmental aspects

Lesotho is a Least Developed Country that depends heavily on the state of its environment in allmajor respects. More than 70% of the population engage in subsistence rain-fed agriculture,often complemented by sales of wool and mohair, especially in the mountain areas. The mainsource of foreign exchange for the country is related to the extraction of its natural resources,primarily water (transferred to RSA through the LHWP) and diamond mining.

The main environmental issues identified for Lesotho - highlighted to EU attention - are landdegradation, environmental governance, water management and renewable energy.

Land degradation

The environmental resources that underpin Lesotho’s economy are scarce, seriously degradedand/or highly vulnerable to climate change. Food insecurity has not improved in the past coupleof decades and remains one of the main challenges, with decreasing agricultural yields to whichthe changing climate has been contributing. Arable land area is very limited and decreasing, andits soils are increasingly being washed away and degraded. Rangelands are being over-stockedand over-grazed, which does not allow them to regenerate; these are being colonised by InvasiveAlien Species and overstocking is also exacerbating soil erosion. Over-harvesting of fuel wood isadding to land degradation; this in a context where the majority of the rural population depend

1 The water sector expert was replaced in the middle of the mission due to administrative matters.2 A limited number of site visits was organised to see key environmental issues on-site as well as to be able to holdinterviews with stakeholders at the local level. Visits included UNDP Sustainable Land Management (SLM) projectsites; Leribe (local authorities and projects) and the industrial area around Maseru.

xii Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

on wood as the main source of energy for cooking and heating, where forest cover is incrediblysmall, and where there is no tradition of sustainable management of forest resources. Otherfactors – biophysical, regulatory, institutional – also contribute to land degradation, such asbushfires, erosion of traditional authority vis-à-vis recently established and yet ineffective localauthorities, an out-dated regulatory system, and fragmented and un-coordinated institutionalstructures. Wetlands are also increasingly under pressure; siltation from land degradation affectstheir ecological functions, some have been reclaimed for agricultural land, cattle graze on them,and roads often traverse them. Inappropriate range management is also directly affecting wetlandfunctions.

Land degradation has multiple causes. It also has multiple effects that spread over a wide array ofsectors and sub-sectors. The most immediate effects are decreasing agricultural yields anddiminishing grazing lands, which both impinge directly on food security for the majority of thepopulation. Degraded land has an adverse effect on local biodiversity; traditional medicinal plantsbecome scarcer, impacting health of the local population and also traditional Basotho culture.Eroded soil washes to the rivers, adding to nutrient load and thus diminishing oxygen levels,affecting river ecosystems. But sediments also end up in the dams, decreasing their life-time, andthus potentially affecting the revenues from the transfers of water to RSA and reducing thehydropower generation potential. Sediment load will eventually lead to increasing levels ofeutrophication, which will affect the potential for tourism and aquaculture, as well as furtherreduce hydropower generation potential. Increased sediment loads on dams and eventualeutrophication will also affect the Government’s efforts to provide improved water sources tothe population, by decreasing the life-span of dams and increasing water treatment costs. Landdegradation is thus on its way to interfere with the basis of Lesotho’s main source of foreignexchange, as well as with the country’s efforts to reduce energy dependency and improve accessto water.

Climate change is already contributing to land degradation and increased food insecurity, asexperienced by farmers across the country. Climate change is likely to, inter alia, reduce theregenerative capacity of vegetation through drier weather (causing further stress on rangelands),more intense precipitation events (increasing run-off and risk of floods), and lead to diminishingwater resources.

The GoL has recognised the importance of land degradation: different line ministries and levelsof government have responsibilities in relation to land degradation, and various pieces oflegislation and policies refer to the problem. However efforts to address land degradation havebeen shy, insufficient, ineffective and largely uncoordinated. Sound policies and strategies havebeen or are being prepared, but effective implementation remains a challenge. Lack ofcomprehensive and effective M&E systems in the key sectors does not contribute to effectiveplanning.

The NSDP again emphasises the problem of land degradation, but the GoL’s key focus is onmacroeconomic figures, promoting job creation through the further development of the LHWPand expansion of the mining industry. Land degradation, albeit its direct relationship to thesituation of poverty in the country, does not figure prominently in the GoL priorities. In thewords of the NSDP: “Employment creation represents the best way of achieving progress towards Vision 2020goals. Therefore, the Plan’s main indicator for success will be the number of jobs added to the economy…”

With some exceptions, environment is not a key area of attention by the donor community. Mostof the environment-related support is directed to water supply and sanitation services. There ishowever, support from the MCC to wetlands protection and some small donor-funded projectsaddressing issues such as conservation agriculture and climate change adaptation in theagriculture sector. In relation to land degradation the UNDP Sustainable Land Management(SLM) project is the one that most directly addresses the issue of land degradation; however, theproject is coming to an end and funds have not yet been identified for up-scaling.

Water management

Provision of water supply and sanitation services has received wider support from the donorcommunity; however, the wider water sector is fundamental not only with regards to its

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile xiii

relationship to the country’s macroeconomic figures (i.e. LHWP) but also due to its direct link toland degradation (wetlands, integrated water catchment management) and to its potential toreduce food insecurity and contribute to adaptation to climate change (e.g. small-scale irrigation,water harvesting).

The broader water sector is fragmented between different ministries, departments andparastatals. The MNR addresses issues of water policy and planning, water quality monitoring,wetlands management and, through the DRWS and WASCO, provision of water supply andsanitation services, where local authorities should play an increasingly important role. The LHDAdeals with the LHWP and bulk water transfers to RSA. Water for agriculture (irrigation) is mainlyaddressed under the MAFS; small water-capture structures by the MFLR, which are alsoaddressing protection of wetlands. Land management aspects fundamental to a healthy watersystem are under the MFLR and, to a lesser extent, the MAFS.

The integrated planning and management dimension that is fundamental to water management isconsidered at a policy and strategy level, but is yet to become a reality; insufficient and ineffectiveinter-institutional coordination mechanisms remain one of the main limiting factors.

The lack of a functional M&E system in the sector has also not helped in achieving goodplanning; there is no current agreement on baseline data, and basic indicators are proving difficultto measure, as evidenced by the difficulties to apply the performance indicators agreed with theEU for the water SBS. The M&E system requires attention; however, the donor communityshould consider the water sector in its broader context, especially as it relates to fundamentalchallenges for poverty eradication, such as is the case with land degradation.

Integrated Water Catchment Management

Issues of land degradation and water management are best addressed through an integrated watercatchment management approach, which would normally include aspects such as rangelandmanagement, soil erosion control, forestry, water resources management, water quality control,etc. The integrated water catchment management approach is foreseen under the Water andSanitation Policy (2007), but is also referred to in the National Environmental Policy (1998) aswell as in the draft versions of the National Soil and Water Conservation Policy and the NationalLand Use Policy. An integrated water catchment management approach has the beauty ofcapturing – in a coordinated manner – the main challenges identified above under the banners ofland degradation and water management. Such a systemic approach comes at a cost ofcomplexity, which is translated into significant challenges.

As any integrated approach, water catchment management necessitates a clear overarching policyand effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms. This is a challenge under the currentLesotho context, where inter-institutional coordination has been very weak and ineffective, andwhere the different components that must be covered by a water catchment managementapproach are fragmented across several government institutions, in some cases overlapping. Thiscomplexity is carefully considered in proposing a donor support to water catchmentmanagement. For example, at a very basic level clarification must be obtained about whether anintegrated catchment management approach (foreseen under the Water & Sanitation Policy andpromoted by the MNR) is the same as the integrated land and water conservation approach(promoted by the MFLR).

Environmental governance

Environmental governance in Lesotho is very weak. Lesotho Vision 2020 does refer to a “wellmanaged environment” as an integral element of the vision statement. “Lesotho shall be renowned forits environmental management” (Vision 2020, Section 2.3.6) points the way forward; the NSDPrescues environmental management as one of the strategic areas and recognises that “soundenvironmental policies, adaptation to climate change and physical planning are necessary for sustainable long-termeconomic growth while preserving our country for future generations”. It further acknowledges that “there iscompelling evidence that the measures that are currently being taken…are not adequate to reverse environmentaldegradation”.

xiv Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

The Environment Act 2001 provided for the creation of the semi-independent LesothoEnvironment Authority (LEA). Nevertheless it was decided that no funds were available toestablish the LEA, and the former National Environment Secretariat (NES) was converted intothe Department of Environment (DoE) within the MTEC. Several indicators shed light on theinherent weaknesses of the DoE and thus its constraints to fulfil its mandate of advocate anddefender of environmental protection in the country, for example: (i) the Ministry’s missionstatement is all about tourism development3 - on a generous interpretation, the mission is aboutenvironmental protection so it may facilitate tourism development; (ii) the approximate budgetallocated to the MTEC for 2012-2014 represents only 0.16% of the total budget; the draft list of“on-going projects” identified under the draft PSIP for the MTEC does not include a singleenvironmental project; (iii) most of the provisions made in the Environment Act 2008 have notbeen implemented; (iv) the MTEC’s Strategic Plan 2005-2008 prescribed without havingimplemented most of the actions foreseen for the DoE. Furthermore the DoE is understaffedand does not have resources to carry out some of its basic functions.

In spite Lesotho cannot be considered an industrial country, there is the presence ofenvironmentally sensitive industry, such as the garment and mining industries. Large-scaleinfrastructure projects are also environmentally sensitive, such as the construction of large damsunder the LHWP. We must recall that the NSDP is placing emphasis on the expansion of themining industry and LHWP as growth accelerators under the low-growth scenario; under themoderate-growth scenario these also include manufacturing, agriculture (commercial) andtourism. The existing gap between the development of environmentally-sensitive activities andthe capacities of the environmental governance system to guarantee the implementation ofregulations and safeguards and ensure enforcement, is widening. Strengthening of environmentalgovernance is a necessity.

For environmental governance to be effective many fronts need to be tackled, such as:institutional arrangements; inter-institutional coordination mechanisms; resources; technicalcapacities; enforcement powers; and M&E, including establishment of an environmental baseline.

Recommendations

The analysis of the environmental challenges in Lesotho are translated into practicalrecommendations as to how the EU can best contribute to address them under the programmingfor the 11th EDF. Careful consideration is given to the objectives of EU developmentcooperation, as stated in the European Consensus on Development4, the principles of the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness, and the draft EC Programming Guidelines.

Sectors and areas of support under 11th EDF

Two narrowly defined sector of cooperation are proposed for the EU to consider supporting:land degradation and environmental governance. As well recommendations are made for theintegration of environmental consideration into a possible support to the energy sector. Finallyspecific recommendations are made for better environmental integration in the support to thewater sector, which also captures some elements associated to land degradation.

Land degradation

In terms of alignment, a hypothetical support to land degradation would be contributing to anumber of GoL policy objectives; land degradation is also subject of attention of a number ofsectoral strategies. The draft programming guidelines state that the EU should support thosesectors that build the foundations for growth, and in particular those with a strong multipliereffect, “notably agriculture and energy”. Addressing land degradation is a de facto support toagriculture.

3 “The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture is committed to promote environmentally and culturally sustainable development,making Lesotho the number one tourism destination in the region through the provision of high quality service and creation of enablingenvironment for the private sector driven and community based tourism development”.4 The 2005 European Consensus on Development states that: “the primary and overarching objective of EU developmentcooperation is the eradication of poverty in the context of sustainable development, including pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals”.

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile xv

Ownership may prove a challenge in a support to land degradation, as it is an area thatnecessarily requires inter-institutional coordination and which is currently weak in Lesotho.Support to land degradation would thus require to first focus on the building of ownershipand the creation of effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms.

Sector support should be the preferred aid delivery modality. However due to the multi-sectoralnature of land degradation, it is not clear which should be the government strategy to besupported through the SPSP (e.g. the National Range Resources Management Policy, theNational Soil and Water Conservation Policy). An alignment of policies with key focus onland degradation needs to be achieved, and responsibilities for its implementation clearlydefined under the coordination mechanisms. Such an alignment of policies and setting up of acoordination mechanism for the sub-sector may profit from a long-term Technical Assistance,complemented with ownership- and capacity-building activities, such as on-the-job trainings,post-graduate trainings, study tours and twinning arrangements. Working closely with localauthorities and traditional authorities is essential in this sector. Technical Assistance could beused to assess technical capacity of land degradation officers and develop an associatedtraining plan and a retention plan. TA could also provide capacity building for extensionofficers and help create extension posts at a high enough level to attract skilled graduates andensure candidate skills are aligned to positions.

Lack of a baseline on land degradation is a key inhibiting factor for effective land management,and thus the generation of a baseline should be priority for evidence-based planning, an area thatUNDP is exploring. Technical Assistance could also be used to generate the baseline and themonitoring system.

It is highly recommended not to focus all resources on Sector Budget Support (SBS), but rathercomplement them with TA as described above.

Choice of performance indicators is key for successful sector support. Under the NSDPproposed M&E system, the only directly relevant indicator is “rehabilitated areas affected by soilerosion”; however no methodology has been defined on how this indicator should be measured. Acredible and agreed methodology for the measurement of this indicator has to be agreed,probably complemented by indirect measures of soil erosion (e.g. suspended solids and sedimentload in strategically located surface water sampling points).

In addition to soil erosion, land degradation must also be measured with regards to rangelandmanagement and soil conservation agricultural practices. Possible aspects that could be reflectedin indicators include: (i) stocking rates; (ii) number of farmers under functional RangeManagement Associations; (iii) area under conservation agriculture; (iv) number of approved landuse plans; (v) rate of encroachment on arable land; (vi) expenditure on research on soil erosion;and/or (vii) land degradation monitoring system established. UNDP – under its SLM project - isexploring options to measure rangeland degradation for evidence based planning. Results of thisconsultancy should be taken into account when considering indicators.

Donor coordination will be essential in order to ensure complementarity and follow-up of otheractivities, notably the UNDP SLM project, the FAO climate change adaptation in agricultureproject, the WB small-scale agriculture project, as well as others (e.g. under USAID) that havehad a narrower scope.


Strong environmental governance is needed in a country whose economy is almost fullydependent on its natural resources (mainly water, rangelands and soils), where these naturalresources are under increasing stress, and where the country’s growth strategy promotes anincrease in industrial activity and large infrastructure works. Environmental governance is also anarea that has been largely neglected by the donor community, and where the EU could have asignificant impact.

In terms of alignment, a hypothetical support to environmental governance would becontributing to a number of GoL policy objectives and strategies. One of the challenges insupporting environmental governance is that the DoE has been kept as a weak institution,

xvi Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

showing a deficit of environmental awareness at the highest political levels, whereenvironmental protection is to a certain extent still seen as a potential obstacle for the onset ofbusiness. For this reason Sector Budget Support is not recommended. Rather, a support toenvironmental governance could be addressed taking into account the following:

Awareness raising at the political level on the links between environmental degradation, povertyand economic growth. Technical Assistance could be used to prepare a detailed economicvaluation of natural resources and environmental degradation in Lesotho, which would translateenvironmental degradation into monetary terms. Such a study could form the basis for awarenessraising. However, the lack of baseline data may be an important obstacle for the preparation of suchan economic valuation; a scoping study may thus be required to determine the methodology to beused and the basic baseline data to be generated.Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) can also be promoted as a tool to better integrate theenvironment into policy-making and planning processes at the national and sector levels. The donorcommunity has wide experience in the use of SEA. As well, the Environment Act 2008 considersSEA as a tool for environmental integration, although its use has not been regulated norimplemented. A pilot SEA in a key sector planning process (e.g. energy) could be very useful to pilotthe tool and also to highlight the environmental issues associated to key sectors.

Awareness raising of the general population on the key environmental issues in the country andoptions to address them. Support to general awareness raising could include: (i) training and capacitybuilding of NGOs to strengthen their advocacy role; (ii) awareness raising of journalists on theenvironmental issues in the country, and capacity building for providing media coverage ofenvironmental issues and on using the mass media as a tool for environmental sensitisation; (iii) inputinto strengthening the environmental component of the national education curricula.

Strengthening of environmental integration in key ministries. Although the DoE trained keypersons to build the Environmental Units (EUs) in the line ministries, most of these EUs are notfunctional or were never formally established. A support to environmental governance should alsodirectly tackle environment as a cross-cutting issue in key sectors; this could include aspects such as:(i) awareness raising and training on the links between the environment and the different sectors(targeted training); (ii) training on use of environmental integration tools, such as EIA and SEA; (iii)assistance and training on measurement of key environmental indicators associated to the sector.

Policy dialogue on the need to enhance environmental governance, and discussing institutionalrearrangements (e.g. creation of an environment executive agency).

Review of the Environment Act 2008 as foreseen under the NSDP, in order to optimise andenhance its performance. Careful attention should be given to ensure this NSDP-foreseen activity isnot focused on further diluting the EIA system to facilitate business development.

Support to the effective implementation of the Environment Act, based on a prioritisation ofactivities. Such support could include a component of sector budget support, with clearly identifiedindicators that measure effective implementation of the Act. Such indicators could include, e.g. (i)number of effluent licenses and pollution licenses issued by the DoE; (ii) number of inspectionscarried out by the DoE; (iii) establishment of the Environmental Tribunal; (iv) number of effluentmonitoring reports submitted by industry to the DoE (in case such a provision is established); (v)approval of effluent quality standards; (vi) compliance of industry with approved effluent qualitystandards.

Environmental integration in the energy sector

Energy is being considered by the EU Delegation as a possible sector of cooperation. Apart fromthe obvious merits of increasing the level of electrification for the Basotho population, from anenvironmental point of view there are three main opportunities: (1) enhanced supply of biomassenergy resources; (2) reduced dependency on biomass resources; and (3) reduced greenhouse gasemissions through the use of renewable sources of energy. The draft Energy Policy (2003) seeksto expand the role of renewable energies by making them more affordable. At the moment solarenergy has been expanded, as well as some mini-hydroelectric schemes and some bio-digestersbeen constructed. Initiatives are on the way for the development of wind power.

From an environmental point of view it should be recalled that the main source of energy for theBasotho population is biomass, mainly wood. The collection of fuel wood from unsustainablesources is associated to increased deforestation and increased land degradation. Increasedelectrification is likely to be used primarily for lighting and running of electric appliances, but

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile xvii

may not be a significant energy substitute for heating and cooking. Reductions in biomassconsumption can be further obtained by promoting increased energy efficiency.

From an environmental point of view, a possible support to the energy sector should ensure thatit builds into its objectives the reduced reliance on wood as a source of household energyand (especially) the increase of sustainably managed sources of fuel wood (with appropriatespecies that do not contribute to land degradation). It thus implies that the support to the energysector looks at aspects such as: reforestation; afforestation; and forestry management plans.These should be reflected in appropriate indicators, such as: (i) % of households that usesustainably managed woodlots to secure wood for energy purposes; (ii) % of energy needs(cooking, heating, lighting) satisfied by wood. From a climate change mitigation point of view,the support to the energy sector should seek to maximise opportunities for low-carbon sourcesof energy in line with a “green growth” approach to development, as already promoted by theGoL.

A Renewable Energy Policy needs to be aligned with the National Forestry Policy (2008), whichpromotes planting of trees and shrubs to curb the energy deficit. The MFLR (ForestryDepartment) will have to be engaged in a support to the energy sector.

One of the major obstacles for the support to the energy sector is that the government does nothave an approved Energy Policy (the 2003 policy remains a draft), and the Renewable EnergyPolicy has not yet been prepared.

Under the EU Guidelines for Integration of Environment and Climate Change in Development Cooperation,energy is considered as an environmentally-sensitive sector, and it is thus recommended toprepare a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the policy/strategy whoseimplementation will be supported. The EU should carry out an SEA Screening as part of theenergy sector SPSP identification. In case it is decided that an SEA needs to be carried out, theresults of the screening process should be used to help define the scope of the SEA, so itbecomes a focused process. In this case: (i) the EU should build ownership of the SEA process;(ii) the SEA would provide recommendations to the GoL on how to better integrate theenvironment in the energy policy and to the EU on how the environment could be betterintegrated into the formulation of the energy sector SPSP; (iii) ideally the SEA should be carriedout as part of the policy-making process; (iv) the ToR for the SEA must be adapted to ensurethat it addresses not only the potential environmental impacts of policy implementation, but alsoto identify the environmental challenges in the sector in order to seek opportunities for theenergy policy to better address them; (iv) the SEA would also need to take into account otherpolicies and strategies relevant to the energy sector, especially the National Forestry Policy and itsAction Plan.

Water sector support

The EU is currently supporting the water sector through a Sector Budget Support programme,with a focus on water provision and sanitation. However the monitoring has proved difficult toimplement, due to the lack of a credible baseline and to the absence of an effective M&E systemin the sector. A study to review the M&E system in the water was recently prepared (Vad andKiwango, 2011) which provides recommendations for improving the M&E system. The EUshould ensure an appropriate M&E system, in line with the recommendations made in thatreport, is developed and implemented for continuation of the current support.

The EU is also likely to agree a new SPSP for the water sector under the 11th EDF. For this newSPSP it is highly recommended that the water sector is addressed in its broader sense, and notlimited to the provision of water supply and sanitation services. The EU support should focus onthe implementation of an integrated water catchment management approach, as foreseen inthe Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy.

Water management can only be effective if it takes into account the whole catchment. Thisincludes measures to guarantee water quantity and quality, such as protection of sources of water(e.g. wetlands), buffering of run-off (e.g. vegetation cover), and water quality (e.g. effluentcontrol). It also includes measures to satisfy demand, such as water for irrigation, industrial use

xviii Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

and household consumption. Integrated water catchment management is becoming increasinglyimportant in the context of climate change, as water supply is like to decrease; water-dependentproductive sectors (e.g. rain-fed subsistence agriculture) are especially vulnerable and are likely tobe affected by erratic rainfall patters, putting further stress on food security.

Aspects to address in approaching integrated water catchment management have been identifiedby (Vad and Kiwango, 2011), and are consistent with the analyses undertaken as part of thisCEP. These include focus on local level planning and implementation; and combined planningand budgeting at national level between the involved line ministries of natural resources, forestryand land reclamation, agriculture, environment and local government.

Inter-institutional coordination is fundamental for successful integrated water catchmentmanagement; for this to occur it is essential to build ownership of the process as well as thenecessary awareness and capacities. A watershed management approach requires the involvementof the DWA, the MAFS (e.g. in terms of irrigation and agricultural practices), the MFLR (e.g. interms of forest management, soil and water conservation and rangeland management), the DoE(pollution control), Community Councils and traditional authorities. Alignment of sectorpolicies is also fundamental, more particularly the Water and Sanitation Policy (and theupcoming Long-term Water and Sanitation Strategy), the up-coming Soil and WaterConservation Policy (being prepared by the MFLR), the Range Resources Management Policy(currently in draft), and the Irrigation Policy (in draft).

The EU could support activities such as:

Long-term technical assistance, helping in setting up an inter-institutional coordinationmechanism, implementing it, and developing capacities (training);

Study tours to countries in the region where an integrated watershed management approach hasproved successful;

Post-graduate and/or on-the-job training on integrated watershed management;

Alignment of relevant sector policies.

Due to the importance of land degradation as an inhibiting factor for development andits direct link to water catchment management, if the EUD decides not to support landdegradation as a sector of cooperation, it is recommended that it integrates key landdegradation variables in its support to water catchment management. Such aspects couldinclude, e.g.: (i) up-scaling of range management systems; (ii) establishment of a baseline of landdegradation/soil erosion; and (iii) establishment of a land degradation monitoring system.

Performance indicators could reflect in general terms progress in the setting up andimplementation of an integrated water catchment management approach, for example: numberof water catchment management plans developed and approved, or establishment of awater catchment management coordinating body. However it is recommended thatmonitoring also focuses on more concrete priority aspects of water management; in particular werecommend promoting small-scale irrigation.

In a country where the majority of the population depends on subsistence rain-fed agricultureand where climate change is expected to especially affect the agriculture sector, irrigation isrightly recognised under the NAPA as one of the key adaptation measures. Moreover, largedams, such as Metolong and those under the LHWP offer a guaranteed and constant water flowthroughout the year, which could be used to provide gravity irrigation. However, a possiblesupport to small-scale irrigation should ensure that feasibility studies are carried outprior to any developments, ensuring that irrigation will not exacerbate soil erosion, whichcan be particularly problematic in duplex soils. Indicators such as the following could beused: (i) area (ha) under irrigated agriculture; (ii) % of households practicing irrigation agriculture.

An SEA Screening was prepared in accordance with the EC guidelines for environmentalintegration, concluding that an SEA for the LWSP (context of an SPSP in the water sector) is notnecessary, but highlighting areas of attention. A distinction is made between the Lesotho Waterand Sanitation Policy (subject of the water sector SPSP) and the wider ‘policy’ to the watersector, which includes the LHWP. Whilst the former is largely not environmentally sensitive and

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile xix

has mainly potential positive environmental impacts, the latter is highly sensitive inenvironmental terms. Thus the EUD is encouraged to advocate, through its policy dialogue, forthe completion of a cumulative impacts assessment for the whole of the LHWP and otherdams, also explicitly taking into account the expected effects of climate change and increasedclimate variability and the potential socio-economic impacts (e.g. water availability for theBasotho population, including to satisfy requirements for climate change adaptation, such assmall-scale irrigation).

Environmental integration in EU Delegation

Although no critical shortcomings were identified, environmental integration in the EUD’s ownpractices could benefit from some improvements that deserve explicit attention:

Undertake EIA and SEA screenings as part of the identification of all project (EIA screening) andsector (SEA screening) supports in accordance with the Guidelines for environmental integration.Attach the screening results to the respective Identification Fiches.

Promote and carry out SEAs (were necessary, based on SEA screening), in coordination with theGoL and other donors (e.g. an SEA of the NSDP would have been useful in the context of theGBS).

In analysing the environment as a cross-cutting issue as part of the identification and formulationphases (and as reflected in the corresponding IFs and AFs), do not centre attention only onpotential adverse impacts on the environment (which are largely absent for the case onenvironmentally non-sensitive sectors), but also look for opportunities for the proposed supportproject/programme to help address environmental concerns and enhance environmentalperformance (opportunities can be identified in most sectors). The EC Guidelines forenvironmental integration provide many prompts for the identification of such opportunities.

Lesotho Country Environmental Profile 1

1. IntroductionUnder the European Commission (EC) Guidelines on the Integration of Environment and Climate Changein Development Cooperation (European Commission, 2009) the Country Environmental Profile(CEP) is the main tool for the integration of the environment into the programming phase. TheCEP provides information that allows the European Union Delegation (EUD) to appraise theenvironmental dimension and integrate it in its programming. The CEP is a reference document.Such information includes:

A description of the country’s state of the environment, including existing pressures, trends andlinks to the situation of poverty and the socio-economic context;

An identification of the key environmental concerns in the country;

An analysis of actions from the EU and other donors in the environment sector and inenvironmental mainstreaming;

A review of the policy, legislative and institutional framework for environmental governance;

An appraisal of the degree of environmental integration in the main sectors; and

Conclusions and recommendations to better integrate the environment in the EU programming.

The elaboration of the CEP is based primarily on a comprehensive review of existing literature,bilateral interviews with key stakeholders (see Appendix 5) and site visits. Field trips were takento UNDP SLM (Sustainable Land Management) Project sites around Semakong in Rapoleboea,Hlabathe, Boreipala, and Tsenakeng; Leribe (visiting GIZ work on decentralisation of forestmanagement and on land use planning); and the Maseru industrial area.

2. State of the Environment

2.1 Geophysical Environment

2.1.1 Location, geography and climateThe Kingdom of Lesotho is a landlocked country that covers a surface area of 30,648 km2

between latitudes 28°41’ and 31°41’ south and between longitudes 27º00’ and 29º30’ east, just tothe right of the centre of the Republic of South Africa (RSA). Most of the country ismountainous (59%), characterised by bare rock and deep V-shaped river valleys; the lowlands arelocated along the western border and cover around 17% of the territory; the foothills, betweenthe lowlands and the mountainous area comprise 15% of the land area; and the remaining 9%corresponds to the Senqu Valley, a narrow strip of land along the Senqu (Orange) River. These

correspond to the four agro-ecological zones present in Lesotho (see Figure 4). Altitudes inLesotho range from around 1,388 masl in the lowlands, at the confluence of Senqu and itstributary Makhaleng, to over 3,000 masl in the highlands with a peak of 3,482 masl, ThabanaNtlenyana (the highest in Southern Africa), with 80% of the territory lying over 1,800 masl. The200 km Drakensberg-Maloti mountain range separates Lesotho and the provinces of KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape of RSA.

The climate in Lesotho is continental and temperate with four distinct seasons; it receives 85%of its annual rainfall in the October-April period, averaging 700 mm/yr (below the world averageof 800 mm/yr). The highlands are the wettest part, with an average of 1,200 mm/yr, whereas theSenqu Valley receives the lowest precipitation, with an average of 500 mm/yr (NES, 2002a).Winter snowfall occurs in the mountain areas, and approximately once every three years in thelowlands. The precipitation of Lesotho is highly variable, and this variability has increased in thelast 23 years resulting in more dry years than in other similar periods (Sekoli, 2002). In thelowlands winters are mild and summers hot, whereas in the highlands temperatures are colder,reaching minus 19°C in the winter. The extreme recorded temperatures are +39.4ºC in Maseruand -20.4ºC (June 1967) at Letšeng-La-Terai at an altitude of 3,050 masl (Makhoalibe, 1997). See

Figure 5 and Figure 6 for average annual temperatures and precipitation respectively.

2 Lesotho Country Environmental Profile

2.1.2 Water resourcesHydrographic network

Lesotho’s hydrographic network is shared with neighbouring countries, being an upstreamriparian State with RSA and Namibia in the Senqu/Orange river basin, which has a drainage areaof about 1 million km2. Although 59% of the Senqu/Orange River Basin lies in RSA andLesotho has only 3% of the basin land area, 46% of mean annual runoff is generated fromLesotho. There are four major river systems: the largest is the Senqu catchment, with 20,485 km2

and draining 113 m3/s; this is followed by the Mohokare catchment (6890 km2 and 39 m3/s), theMakhaleng catchment (2,911 km2 and 18 m3/s) and the Maphutseng catchment (362 km2 and 1.9m3/s) (Mojakisane et al, 2004)5. The first two of these river systems originate in the Mount AuxSources in the northeast along the Drakensberg, whereas the latter two originate in the central

Maloti and flow in a south-west direction into RSA. See Figure 7 for Lesotho’s river systems.

In terms of groundwater resources, it is estimated that Lesotho has a total of 5,925 Mm3 of staticand 341 Mm3 of renewable groundwater resources (MNR, nd b), groundwater yields beinggenerally small with exception of a few well fields. Reliance of groundwater sources varies widely,from 5% of the rural population in Thaba-Tseka District to 72% of the rural population inMaseru District (MNR, 2000).

Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP)

Water is one of the most important natural resources in Lesotho, and is the basis for a large partof its economy: mainly water transfers to RSA under the Lesotho Highlands Water Project(LHWP) and also the generation of electricity in the highlands. Water is also stored and usedthrough smaller schemes in the various urban and peri-urban areas in the lowlands servingdomestic, municipal and industrial needs, as well as the rural water supply systems consistingmainly of abstractions from boreholes, wells and springs (MNR, nd b).

There are three large dams in the highlands: (i) Katse dam with 1,950 Mm3 capacity; (ii) Mohaledam with 958 Mm3 capacity; and (iii) Muela dam with 6 Mm3 capacity and a 72 MW hydropowerplant. These are all part of the LHWP to supply water to RSA. In the lowlands there are variouswater abstraction systems which are not meeting the water demand, the largest of which is thepumping of water from the Caledon River for the supply of water to Maseru at a rate of 24,691m3/day (MNR, nd b).

The LHWP foresees the construction of four more dams, the first of which (corresponding tothe project’s Phase 2) is already agreed: (i) Polihali dam with 2,322 Mm3 capacity and an 83 MWhydropower plant (LHWP Phase 2); (ii) Tsoelike dam with 2,050 Mm3 capacity (LHWP Phase 3);(iii) Ntoahae dam with 1,720 Mm3 capacity (LHWP Phase 4); and Malatsi dam (LHWP Phase 5).These subsequent phases were originally scheduled for completion by 2020.

The LHWP is the cornerstone of the GoL’s strategy for the country’s development; it representsthe main source of foreign exchange earnings and takes approximately 75% of the budget.Nevertheless the potential impacts of the LHWP are large in terms of water security for thecountry, reduction of scarce arable and grazing lands and environmental impacts.

Wetlands6

Out of the five wetland systems found in Southern Africa, three are found in Lesotho: palustrine,lacustrine and riverine (Cowan and Van Riet, 1998). Almost all wetlands are found in highprecipitation areas in the highlands (notably in the northeast part of the country), and are foundin the headwaters of catchments; these range in size from several square metres to several squarekilometres, and cover approximately 1.36% of the total land area (National EnvironmentSecretariat, 2002).

5 The figures reported by Makhoalibe (1997) are 118, 32 and 20 m3/s respectively, inclusive of groundwatercontribution.6 The state of wetlands will be assessed as part of the MCC “Wetlands Restoration and Conservation Project”; thissection is largely based on National Environment Secretariat (2002a); Anchor Environmental Consultants (2007); andHughes et al (1992).


Lesotho wetlands are the main source of water for the Orange-Senqu River Basin, and alsoprovide a range of direct services such as livestock pasture, medicinal plants and thatch grass forlocal communities; other important ecosystemic services include climate regulation throughcarbon recycling, absorption of toxins, flood control/erosion control, genetic and biologicaldiversity, habitat for numerous species, maintaining groundwater levels and water purification.

Grasses are abundant and make up the largest proportion (65%) of the herbaceous cover.Vegetation in Lesotho’s wetlands include many endemic species occurring in the high-lyingalpine areas.

Wetlands in Lesotho are distinct both floristically and structurally from those found in otherparts of the region (Anchor Environmental Consultants, 2007), and have been defined as rareecological features in Southern Africa, making them extremely valuable from a social andbiodiversity perspective. For example, the dwarf Erica-Helichrysum heathland, and the dense, mat-like vegetation of the mountain wetlands occur nowhere else in southern or central Africa.

The following wetland types are found in Lesotho:

Marshes, typically with reedbeds;

Tarns, consisting of shallow pools and pans without external drainage on sandstone outcrops; and

Bods and sponges (also called mires), their character being midslope and valleyhead fens, found atsources of streams and rivers.

Lesotho currently has one declared Ramsar site, the Lets’eng-la – Letsie wetland, situated about200 km south-east of Maseru, in the Quthing District, and which covers an area of 434 ha. Thesite is within the Maloti Mountains and is part of the Maloti-Drakensberg system.

However, many of Lesotho’s wetlands have been degraded, two main factors being landdegradation and climate change. The extent of damage is variable, with some wetlands beingtrampled by livestock and beginning to lose their functions; others have been destroyed by theformation of gullies. Many wetlands, particularly mires are found within rangelands, and havebeen damaged by overgrazing and trampling by livestock. Mining activities and road constructionhave also damaged and destroyed wetlands. Proper management of wetlands implies properrange management, such as effective rotational grazing that allows wetlands to rest; rangemanagement is however very deficient at present (ORASECOM, 2008).

The gradual drying of the climate over the past 4,000 years has resulted in the alteration ofhydrologic regimes. The blooming of the ice rat population, presumably due to the reducedpopulation of its main predator, has also contributed to degradation of wetland peripheries; icerats cause considerable soil displacement by burrowing and thus promoting wetland aeration andoxidation. Finally agricultural encroachment into wetlands is also a factor of degradation.

Representative montane wetlands are conserved in the Sehlabathebe National Park, which covers6,805 ha in the south-east of the country, encompassing the headwaters of the Tsoelike River.The park provides one of the last refuges of a small rare fish, Oreodaimon quathlanzbae, as well as arecently described aquatic plant, Aponogeton ranunculiflorus.

Pressures on the water regime

The water regime of a freshwater ecosystem is the prevailing pattern of water flow over a giventime, and can be determined from measurements on: precipitation including snow-melt, anddischarge; dynamics of water movement through the system; water use including waterabstraction for domestic use, agriculture including irrigation, industry including cooling water andprocessing, and other uses; water storage including impoundments / wetlands / marshes andvegetation, water diversion into and out of the catchment; evapotranspiration rates and waterdepth; and biophysical variables such as temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,and pH.

Water regime changes which are occurring in Lesotho are the result of:

construction of large dams for the LHWP and water transfers to RSA;


removal of peak flows and variability in river catchments as a result of mean annual runoff (MAR)exported to RSA (removal of 30-40% MAR in the form of large inter-year as well as a significantproportion of small intra-year floods and reduction of dry season base flows);

ecosystem changes downstream from LHWP dams including in-stream flow requirements,sedimentation as a result of low flows in the Orange-Senqu river and tributaries, opportunist plantcolonisation of river banks and in-stream deposition;

stressed and failing in-stream flow requirements, including elimination of fish species, macro-invertebrate and aquatic plant species extinction;

invasive species in water habitats, including increased outbreaks of microbial growth; and

water pollution, including high nutrient loading and eutrophication.

Water regime changes have caused a progressive series of impacts in the Orange-Senqu, Senqu,Malibamatso, Senqunyane and Matsoku rivers in Lesotho:

Biophysical impacts – a highly specific downstream biophysical response at different sites wasreported by Metsi Consultants (2000) to the flow regime imposed by LHWP;

Social impacts – are correlated with the biophysical impacts of the water regime changes but display adifferent pattern of distribution, perhaps influenced by the distribution of communities in relation tothe various reaches and the local geomorphology, which influences the distribution and abundance ofimportant resources such as trees, fish and herbs, and the extent to which communities gather andutilise these resources;

Public health impacts – downstream communities are at risk from water-borne and sanitation-relateddiseases, and these are exacerbated by reductions in river flows and reduced frequency of periodicflushing; and

Animal health impacts – negative effects on livestock are increased where river regime flows arereduced.

Drought conditions and water availability

The lack of drought definitions and data availability are obstacles to a detailed analysis of droughtconditions in Lesotho. The Drought Management Strategy (MNR, nd a) synthesises the droughtconditions in Lesotho: “All drought indicators in Lesotho, including rainfall, Mohokare flows andgroundwater levels, indicate that the period 2000-2006 has been on average wetter than earlier decades. 2003 hasbeen a very dry year but not exceptional, with drier years in the 1990s and earlier decades. Food shortages in2002-2005 have been attributed to drought, and national droughts are declared annually, but there is no evidenceof widespread hydrological drought in those years. The apparently increased impact of these dry periods must beattributed largely to increased vulnerability of parts of the Lesotho population to crop failures; this is oftenexplained by HIV/AIDS, environmental degradation and infrastructure malfunctioning. A pronounced 10-yeardrought cycle is apparent and a severe drought is to be expected within a decade that requires prioritization ofdrought preparation and adaptation measures. Historical climate variability is considerable and likely to exceedthe impacts of climate change at least in the first coming decades”.

According to the 2002 State of the Environment Report (NES, 2002a), total water resources inLesotho are abundant in relation to demand, with a forecast of 5.18 m3/s by 2025 in comparisonwith a supply of 159.53 m3/sec (surface and groundwater). Nevertheless it has also beenobserved that Lesotho is vulnerable to water stress and scarcity that could result from climatechange, and water stress levels could set in by the year 2016 when less than 1,700 m3 per capitaper year will be experienced, reaching less than 660 m3 per capita per year by 2050 (NES, 2002a)7.

Water use

Industrialisation, irrigation, hydropower development and increasing population in gazettedurban and peri-urban centres have forced water resources development from streams, springs,well fields and rivers to cater for escalating demands (NES, 2002a). The main pressures on water

7 It must be noted that the water stress and water scarcity dates were calculated using 1996 population censusprojections.


resources include: growing population in urban centres; migration from rural into urban areasand increased climate variability associated to climate change (NES, 2002a).

Domestic water supply

The topography of Lesotho is steep slopes with little vegetative cover, so that runoff tends to bevery rapid. Consequently, in these situations, water storage facilities (which significantly alterwater chemistry and biology) are nearly always necessary for water supplies dependent on surfacesources. The few exceptions to this are WASCO water abstraction from the slow-movingCaledon River for Maseru, with recent extension of piped water to Mazenod, and riverabstraction to Teyateyaneg, Leribe and Butha Buthe, conglomerations all sited along the lessmountainous, lowland western edge of Lesotho. Small volume, continuous local directabstraction without impoundment takes place throughout the highlands for single or communitydwellings, but there is no metering or indication of volumes for these.

Agricultural water supply

Agricultural abstraction for irrigation tends to be unregulated, although WASCO have non-validated figures for licenced volumes going to this sector while, on estimate, un-licencedabstractions may well account for up to x10 this volume. These, together with the impact onwater resources from climate change and the progressive extension of the Lesotho HighlandsWater Project (Phases 3 and 4), will undoubtedly, increasingly restrict water availability forhuman consumption, agricultural and industrial use in Lesotho.

The potential for irrigation from run-off river works is approximately 2,520 ha, but many of theworks and schemes have been dormant for years (MNR, nd b). Abstraction of water forirrigation from gravel and sand beds in rivers, using well points or horizontal well screens and forgroundwater development has a further 1,000-2,000 ha potential (MNR, nd b). The long-termirrigation potential in Lesotho is estimated between 12,500 ha (Aquastat Survey, 2005 cited inMNR, nd b) and 36,000 ha (MNR, nd b). Irrigation however, could also lead to exacerbated soilerosion in duplex soils (Showers, 2005), and thus feasibility of any such developments should becarefully studied.

Water Quality

Natural water supplies throughout Lesotho are generally of reasonable quality with respect totheir chemical characteristics, although turbidity, suspended solids and faecal contamination arenearly always high, requiring that raw water undergoes conventional treatment if it is used in largequantities for urban supply. The incidence of pesticide pollution from run-off and radiologicalhazard is likely to be small because of their low-to-limited use in Lesotho. However, theincidence of arsenic poisoning and other chemical and biological hazards - includingmethemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome from nitrates) and Chlamydomonas related disease - isnot known because laboratory testing for these in Lesotho is not performed. Short-term studieshave been undertaken periodically to determine water quality, public health and environmentalhealth as part of academic research. Public health records, health care monitoring, reporting fromdoctors and medical units through the Ministry of Health network is done at all, and results fromenvironmental surveillance tend to be kept isolated from each other.

The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) manages a network of water quality sampling points;as well the LHWP has a large number of water quality sampling points, including the Katse andMohale dams, and also monitors in-stream flow requirements (IFR) for river coursesdownstream from LHWP dams on the Orange-Senqu River.

According to the DWA8, water quality is generally very good throughout the country, with theexception of the Caledon River, which is receiving industrial effluents. The State of WaterResources report is due to at the end of June, 2012.

The LHWP uses the Rapid Biological Assessment (RBA) method, based on the South AfricaScoring System 4 (SASS4) to monitor instream flow requirements (IFR) to assess water quality

8 Interview with the Director of Water Affairs, 09/05/2012.


based on the use of selected fauna species, and assigns scores according to their respectivesensitivity to water pollution (NES, 2002a). Overall the SASS4 scores indicated good waterquality in the highlands, as opposed to low water quality in lowlands streams (NES, 2002a).ORASECOM’s Joint Basin Survey (JBS) (ORASECOM, 2010) found that “water quality along mostof the length of the Orange-Senqu River System does not seem to be significantly degraded through pollution”,although it did identify localised impacts along the Caledon/Mohakare River due to industrialand urban pollution from Maseru and other towns on both sides of the river. In terms of aquaticecosystem health the JBS identified on average that aquatic ecosystems were moderately tolargely modified due to impacts of the Mohale and Katse dams, although it concludes that “theresults from the LHDA’s regular monitoring of macro-invertebrates show that river ecosystems seem to berecovering from the construction of the Lesotho Highlands Dams, although some impacts are still noted from themodification of natural river flows and land degradation”.

The main possible sources of water pollution are identified to be: (i) the urban storm waterdrainage system; (ii) overflowing conservancy and septic tanks and broken sewage reticulationsystems; (iii) the stone wash denim factory in Maseru; (iv) industries in Maseru and other largetowns such as Maputsoe, Mafeteng and Botha-Bothe – canneries, pharmaceutical companies,breweries, ice cream factories, flour mills and clothing manufactures; (v) dipping and sprayingfree-range livestock against parasites; and (vi) high sediment yield from watersheds (NES, 2002a).

2.1.3 Air qualityAtmospheric air quality

Use of domestic wood heaters during winter causes significant air quality impairment fromparticulates (PM10), particularly following night-time temperature inversions associated with coldweather. A variety of materials are used including dried cattle dung, residual dried vegetation suchas dead maize plants, dry and green wood, dried grass, refuse, commercial wood logs, paper andpackaging. Heating is also provided by bottled gas and kerosene heaters, although this is morecommonly used for cooking in Lesotho.

The low incidence of industrial premises suggests that air contamination from industrial sourcesis not a regional problem, but could be a significant public health issue on a local basis nearcontinuous or long-term intermittent industrial emission. The MTEC has the responsibility andremit for controlling industrial discharges and emissions, but this seldom happens.

Traffic pollution in urban environments is not broadly significant because the density of traffic isrelatively low. Agricultural burn-off of vegetable stubble is not a significant problem to air qualityimpairment. Highland communities tend to gather disused plant growth, for example maizeplants or corn stubble which have been allowed to dry in situ over the autumn, and then gatherand use these for fuel over the winter.

Indoor air quality

Indoor air contaminants in domestic premises in Lesotho can arise from furniture and buildingmaterials, household dust, tobacco smoke, smoke and chemical oxides from combustion forheating and cooking, or from outdoor sources.

The Lesotho Sustainability Assessment Project (LSAP) carried out by the Baker Institute forPublic Policy of Rice University9 surveyed three Basotho villages in peri-urban areas during thesummer of 2009, showing that “there is an apparent relationship between household wealth, energyconsumption choices and individual health”. The richest households use electricity or gas for cookingand heating, whereas the poorest households use fuel-wood or paraffin for cooking and firewoodfor heating. Apart from the effects on health from indoor air pollution, consumption of woodfor cooking and heating also contributes to further land degradation.

9 http://bakerinstitute.org/front-page/programs/energy-forum/research/poverty-and-energy/Lesotho.html


2.2 Biophysical Environment

2.2.1 BiodiversityBiological diversity in Lesotho is remarkably rich, taking into consideration the country’s size,with an important number of endemic species. Unfortunately Lesotho’s biodiversity has not beenexplored in detail due to lack of resources, and thus accurate data on biodiversity status andtrends is not available.

There are three major ecological zones in Lesotho: Highland Grassland, Afromontane Grasslandand Alpine Grassland, although some authors also refer to a fourth zone, the Senqu Valley Zone(Department of Environment, 2009). These are home to a variety of grasses, trees, shrubs,flowering plans and associated fauna. The grasslands zones distribution map includes twelvevegetation types. Transcending the three grassland zones are wetlands, which attract a largevariety of aquatic biota.

Based on a number of surveys undertaken in various locations in Lesotho over the past century(see Department of Environment, 2009 for more details), approximately 3,093 species of plantshave been identified in the country, 30% of those found in the Maloti/Drakensberg hot-spotarea. An inventory of fauna shows 63 species of mammals, 318 of birds, 40 of reptiles, 19 ofamphibians, 14 of freshwater fish, and 1,270 of invertebrates.

A number of invasive alien species (IAS) are present in Lesotho, in some cases out-competingnative species10. IASs are acknowledged as a chief threat to biodiversity, although in some casesalso have beneficial characteristics (e.g. most of the species used in agriculture, forestry andfisheries). The decline in native species has partly resulted from the introduction and propagationof IASs, while a degree of interference with the natural environment has also been observed toresult in the invasion of certain species by others (e.g. opportunistic species that set-in inovergrazed rangelands). The status of IAS in Lesotho report refers to 3 aquatic weed species; 3fish species; 15 trees and shrubs species; 1 grass species; 12 terrestrial weed species; and 6 birdsand insect species.

The main threats to biodiversity in Lesotho have been identified by the DoE as being(Department of Environment, 2009): overgrazing; unsustainable harvesting (especially ofmedicinal plants); uncontrolled fires; urban encroachment; agricultural encroachment; invasivealien species; and pollution. Increased attention from the MTEC to exploit plant, animal andcultural sites in order to attract the tourists is also threatening sensitive sites and endangeringalready threatened species.

Threatened species

The IUCN Red List identifies 60 mammal species in Lesotho, of which none are criticallyendangered, one endangered, two vulnerable and one near threatened. Endangered/vulnerablespecies are due to habitat loss, the result of LHWP capital works and infrastructure clearing andconstruction, roadways and noise. The World Bank indicators show a similar picture with 2mammal species under threat (Table 1Table 1), although the biodiversity index credited toLesotho is astonishingly low.

Table 1 World Bank Indicators – Lesotho – biodiversity and protected areas

Biodiversity and Protected Areas Number

Terrestrial protected areas (number) in Lesotho 5.0Terrestrial protected areas (% of total surface area) in Lesotho 0.2Bird species threatened in Lesotho (bearded vulture) 5.0Fish species threatened in Lesotho (minnow) 1.0Mammal species threatened in Lesotho 2.0Plant species (higher plant species) threatened in Lesotho (spiral aloe) 1.0GEF benefits index for biodiversity where 0 = no biodiversity 0.3

10 IAS Status and Distribution reports were prepared in 2005.


The spiral aloe (Aloe polyphylla), the national plant of Lesotho, growing only in the wild in theMaloti Mountains, is a threatened higher plant species partly as a result of climate change andloss of habitat, but primarily as a result of human interference, collection and removal, mostlyfrom tourism and commercial interest (spiral aloe are currently sold on E-Bay as ‘rare collector’splants’ from US$18).

The Maloti Minnow (Pseudobarbus quathlambe) is a small fish approximately 5 cm long. It lives inhighly oxygenated river shallows in the Lesotho highlands, and is a biological indicator of cleanwater. The minnow has been classified as critically endangered by IUCN following researchstudies (JB Smith Institute of Ichthyology RSA) in the vicinity of the Mohale Dam where fishhabitats were destroyed by the LHWP, but also exposing the minnow to predation from largerfish as a result of the construction of interconnecting underwater tunnels. Promotion of fishingfor tourism is also likely to impact on minnow populations.

After allowing Mohale dam to fill, to achieve a long-term conservation objective medium to long-term conservation has been facilitated through community involvement incorporatingtransplanting fish populations, management strategies and appropriate policy reform to supportthe conservation process. Mitigation measures have included monitoring transplanted fishpopulations to establish success rates, ensuring that rivers selected as recipient systems containadequate and suitable resources as well as habitat to sustain the introduced Minnow stock, andensuring that sufficient numbers are introduced to circumvent probable genetic variation loss,founder effects, bottlenecks and inbreeding effects.

The Bearded Vulture is one of the five threatened bird species facing possible extinction as aresult of habitat change, intrusion from tourism into nesting and breeding areas, attack fromherders protecting livestock, and poisoning from eating carrion poisoned by herders protectinglivestock.

Protected areas

Lesotho has the smallest amount of protected land in Africa, with less than 0.4% of total landunder protection. There are six conservation categories in Lesotho:

Maboella - a traditional management tool for livestock grazing control throughout the country;

Environmental Resources Management Areas (formerly Range Management Areas) – used byorganised livestock farmers;

Botanical Gardens – used to keep and reproduce indigenous species;

Indigenous forest patches;

Forest reserves;

Nature reserves; and

National Parks.

Nature reserves and national parks

The Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area has an area of 8,113 km2 (5,170 km2

in Lesotho) and links the Sehlabathebe National Park (65 km2), Lesotho with the uKhahlambaDrakensberg Park KwaZulu-Natal, RSA. The park is situated in the Drakensberg Mountainswhich form the highest areas in the sub-region, and supports unique montane and sub-alpineecosystems. These ecosystems hold a globally significant plant and animal biodiversity, withunique habitats and high levels of endemism. The park is also home to the greatest gallery ofrock art in the world, with hundreds of sites and many thousands of images painted by theBushmen (San) people. The area is vulnerable to climate change.

The Bokong Nature Reserve (19.7 km2) is an extensive afro-alpine area that lies on the frontrange of the Maloti Mountains at an altitude of over 3,000 metres. It contains multiple wetlandsand typical sub-alpine plant and animal communities found throughout highland Lesothoincluding reebok, baboon, breeding pairs of endangered bearded vulture (Seoli), and African ice-rats (Otomys sloggetti). The reserve is vulnerable to climate change, with wetlands in the reservereported as drying and eroding at an unsustainable rate.


The 5,600 ha Ts’ehlanyane National Park (56 km2), which covers an altitudinal range of 1,800metres, has a rich diversity of animal and plant species including stands of ‘cheche’ woodland(Leucocidia sericea) which sustains its own unique flora and fauna. The park, particularly the‘cheche’ woodlands is vulnerable to climate change, rising temperatures and storm events inalpine areas causing erosion (dongas).

The Liphofung Cave Cultural and Historical Site is located in a rural setting on a tributary of theHololo River. The site was occupied by King Moshoeshoe I founder of the Basotho nation. Thecave forms a natural sandstone shelter (holkrans) in which can be seen rock paintings of the Sanperiod, Stone Age artefacts, and archaeological deposits. The stream running through the cave isincreasingly threatening the site and cultural relics as a result of pronounced storm eventsupstream and humidity changes in the cave shearing rock surface. The site has been made into avisitor centre for tourism, which also contributes to its deterioration.

Several proposed areas are under study, the Mount Moorosi Reserve being the closest tocompletion; this area has already been surveyed and plans are being made to preserve it under theUNESCO MAB (Man and Biosphere) programme.

Table 2 shows Lesotho’s protected areas according to IUCN categories11.

Table 2 Protected areas in Lesotho (adapted from USAID, 2009, original source:www.bangor.ac.uk/rangeland/reports/LE-TASK0.htm)

IUCNCategory

Name Management Objective

Category II 1. Sehlabathebe Wild Life Sanctuary and National Park Managed primarily forecosystem protection andrecreation

2. Masitise Nature Reserve3. Ts’ehlanyane Nature Reserve4. Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation andDevelopment Programme

Category III 1. Thaba-Bosiu Mountain Managed primarily forconservation of specificnatural or cultural features

2. Proposed Liphofung Natural Monument3. NUL Botanical Garden4. Proposed Qoaling National Botanical Garden5. MOA Arboretum

Category IV Proposed Management Area Managed mainly forconservation throughmanagement intervention

Category V Proposed Muela Reserve Managed mainly for landand seascape conservationand recreation

Category VI 1. Maboella areas Managed mainly for thesustainable use of naturalecosystems

2. Range Management Areas3. Proposed Biosphere Reserve

2.2.2 ForestsForest area in Lesotho is about 140 km2, less than 0.5% of total land area (2000, Earth Trend,cited in USAID, 2009), consisting mainly of eucalyptus and pine. Of that area only 17.5 km2 arecovered by primary forest (Mongabay), and in these cases these have been preserved largely dueto their inaccessibility in ravines and gullies (USAID, 2007).

Between 1990 and 2005 the forested area increased by 300 ha (60%); however, during the sameperiod the total rate of habitat conservation (defined as change in forest areas plus change inwoodland area minus net plantation expansion) decreased by 69.2% (USAID, 2009). The sparseforest cover can be visualised in Figure 1 below.

Between 1855 and 1993 there have been various efforts to develop forests in Lesotho, the mostnotable being the Lesotho Woodland Project (1973-1986) (LWP) which established around 485

11 Further information about IUCN’s categories can be found at http://wwe.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/index.html


State Forest Reserves (SFR) covering some 11,000 ha, and the Social Forestry Project (SFP)(renamed Social Forestry and Conservation Project – SFCP in 1998) under which some 2,700 haof forest were planted (with a remaining 1,350 ha considering a 50% tree survival rate) between1993 and 2002 (MFLR, 2008a).

Figure 1 Distribution of forest cover in Lesotho (source: www.fao.org)

Forest resources fall into five categories, based on ownership (USAID, 2007):

Indigenous trees and shrubs – mixed evergreen and deciduous forest found in lowland gulliesand valleys, where they are protected from bush fires. These forests are used for grazing,and have suffered from great loss of vegetation.

Government-owned forest plantations – most of these are remnants from the Lesotho WoodlandProject (1973-1987). The majority were planted in the lowlands and foothills and mainlycontain pine and eucalyptus. These areas are generally not managed sustainably.

Privately owned tree lots – these have not been formally studied, and include stands of poplarand silver wattle planted under the Tree Planting Scheme (1994-1997).

Trees belonging to individual families – over 80% of households have at least one tree in the yard,usually fruit trees.

Trees in the urban environment – these have not been documented.

Data on wood production and trade in Lesotho is limited and inadequate; although wood felledand sold by the government should be documented, statistics are rarely reported to forestryheadquarters and wood harvested and sold by individuals or communities is never documented(USAID, 2009).

The main pressures on forest resources include: (i) land clearance for agriculture; (ii) grazing inprotected areas; (iii) bush fires; (iv) drought; and (v) domestic (especially for cooking andheating), commercial and industrial exploitation (USAID, 2009). Of these probably the mostcritical is browsing of re-growth of harvested plants by animals (MFLR, 2010).

2.2.3 RangelandsAbout 60% of Lesotho’s total land area is estimated to be rangeland, which have beendeteriorating over the years. The last National Rangeland Inventory was carried out from 1983-1986, and estimated that land degradation occurs at a rate of 40 tonnes/ha/yr. Based on acarrying capacity of 8 ha/animal unit (AU), the study concluded that overstocking rates were inthe order of 40-80% (MFLR, 2011).


Rangelands are not exclusively used for grazing; there are various other services they provide,including: water supply (filtering and purification of water); biodiversity, including medicinalplants; soil stability functions; reduction of run-off (with effects on reducing soil erosion andflood risks); nutrient recycling; and aesthetic and recreational services (offering opportunities foreco-tourism development).

Healthy rangelands are fundamental for most of Basotho rural livelihoods. For a start ownershipof stock is a deeply engrained cultural tradition associated to social status. Most ruralcommunities rely on livestock as a source of protein (meat), milk, draught power, transport andincome through the sale of wool. Rangeland degradation fundamentally endangers Basotho rurallivelihoods; it has also had an important impact on biodiversity, as the population of wildherbivores has drastically reduced.

There are various drivers of rangeland degradation, including: (i) encroachment for cultivation;(ii) urban encroachment; (iii) partial breakdown of traditional seasonal grazing patters due toincreased stock theft; (iv) less mobility of herds due to new settlements; (v) eroded authority ofchiefs, including confusion on authority for land use management; (vi) Government policydiscouraging transhumance; (vii) decrease of fallow grazing land because of fear of loss oftraditional right of use if not cultivated; (viii) uncontrolled burning; (ix) excessive livestocknumbers; and (x) inundation of rangeland by LHWP dams. Other factors include climaticchanges such as prolonged winters, drought and erratic rainfall patterns, which affect rangelandrehabilitation.12

Probably the main driver of degradation can be synthesised as overstocking, but which is in turndriven by a number of the above related factors.

2.2.4 SoilsApproximately only 9% of the total land area in Lesotho is arable. This contrasts with thefindings of a 1968 study which estimated that 8.6% of the territory was primarily suitable forsemi-intensive cultivation, and 4.2% suitable for extensive cultivation (Bawden and Carroll, 1968cited in UNDP, nd c). It is estimated that up to 13.2 t/ha of soil and 0.2-1.0% of arable land arelost to soil erosion each year (NES, 1999).

The northern and central lowlands are characterised by large deposits of rich volcanic soils; thesouthern lowlands are characterised by poor soils and low rainfall; the foothills have very fertileland; and the soils in the Senqu River Valley are generally poor (MAFS, 2006).

The Lesotho lowlands (18% of the national area) offer the best conditions for agriculture.Although some soils in the lowlands are fertile and well-structured, intensive use has loweredtheir fertility in many areas and a large part of the soils are highly erodible, which has led towidespread erosion in the form of dongas (gullies) (UNDP, nd c). In particular Lesotho has largeextensions of duplex soils, which are particularly vulnerable to erosion13 ; in other countriesduplex soils are left as pasture but due to scarce arable land these are being cultivated in Lesotho(Showers, 2005). According to the Department of Conservation by 1987 dongas were coveringan area of about 60,000 ha, and the current estimate is 100,000 ha (MFLR, 2010).

The foothills (about 12% of the national territory) enjoy a wider distribution of production andrather less erodible soils (UNDP, nd c). The highlands (which occupy 66% of the land area) havea short growing season due to climatic conditions, in spite of having productive soils in somevalley bottoms.

Lesotho is losing large quantities of its soils annually, affecting not only agricultural productivitybut also developments and structures within and downstream of Lesotho, whereby theWelbedacht dam supplying raw water to the water treatment plant for the city of Bloemfontein

12 Driving forces synthesised mainly from MFLR (2011), with minor modifications by the authors.13 Duplex soils are characterised by having a sharp textural difference between an upper, coarse-textured layer and alower, fine-textured layer (Rooyani, 1985 cited in Showers, 2005), which causes these soils to have low tolerance andlow resistance to erosion, making them particularly vulnerable to gully formation (Cauley, 1986 cited in Showers,2005).


has silted up with its capacity reduced from 113.8 Mm3 to 15.1 Mm3 over a period of 21 yearsfrom its infilling in 1972 (TAMS, 1996). The bridge upstream of the Welbedacht dam and acrossthe Mohokare/Caledon river on the R26 road near the town of Wepener has had to be raised byRSA due to the recent annual over-floodings due to sediment build-up from a basin with anannual sediment rate of 878 tonnes/km2/yr (Makhoalibe, 2005).

There are various anthropogenic drivers of soil erosion; according to Schmitz and Rooyani(1987) (cited in UNDP, nd c), these are: removal of vegetation by cultivating, grazing, burningand settlement; continuous single cropping and related farming practices; overgrazing; failure tomaintain conservation structures; and poor drainage from roads. Historical soil erosion controlstructures implemented during colonial and post-colonial times have also proved to be counter-productive, leading in many cases to exacerbated erosion (Showers, 2005). To these factors weshould now add the inundation of fertile soils due to the LHWP; Phase 1A inundatedapproximately 2,300 ha of arable land (WWF, 2009) and Phase 2 is expected to flood 1,765 ha ofarable land (LHDA, 2004).

The Senqu Valley (8% of the national land area) enjoys higher temperatures than the highlands,but has low precipitation and typically poor and erodible soils, limiting its agriculturalproductivity (UNDP, nd c).

The response to soil erosion has been mainly structural, with emphasis on terracing, constructionof contour furrows, diversions, waterways and construction of dams and gully structures(Chakela and Cantor, 1987 cited in Marake, 2010). Recently emphasis has shifted to biologicalconservation methods and cropping systems (Marake et al, 1998), including conservationagriculture and block farming. Only half of households in the mountains are using soil erosioncontrol methods (primarily diversion furrows with some terracing), whilst in the lowlands thefigure is higher (with furrows, terracing, contour ploughing and barriers) (FAO, 2011). Under theFAO household survey one-third of farmers indicated that soil erosion control structures are notbeing maintained.

In the mid-1990s the NES undertook a review of soil erosion data, which identified a largenumber of data gaps: basic research on geological causes of erosion, biological characteristics ofthe vegetative cover, the effects of different land management systems on erosion, baseline data,soil loss measurements, and monitoring or evaluation data from existing structures or oldprojects (Onchere, 1996 cited in Showers, 2005). These gaps remain largely unaddressed, and arefundamental to tackling the soil erosion problem.

2.3 Socio-economic Context

2.3.1 Government and administrative structureLesotho is a constitutional monarchy established in 1996, with the King as Head of State and theexecutive power in the hands of the Government, led by the Prime Minister. There is a dualsystem consisting of traditional Customary Law and General law based on the Roman-Dutchsystem and a constitution that establishes a clear separation of the executive, legislative andjudiciary powers.

The bicameral Parliament consists of an elected National Assembly and an appointed Senate, inwhich 22 of 33 seats are held permanently by Principal Chiefs. The National Assembly comprises120 seats filled on a reformed electoral system (Mixed Member Proportional), with 80 seatscontested on a “first past the post” basis and 40 by proportional representation.

Administrative decentralisation is based on the 1996 Local Government Act, which createdinstitutional structures at the District and Community levels. Each of the ten Districts is led by aDistrict Council; there are also 64 Community Councils, 11 Urban Councils and one MunicipalCouncil (Maseru). The number of Community Councils was originally set at 128, but reduced to64 for budgetary reasons.

Central government is represented at the local level through ‘decentralised’ ministries and byDistrict Administrators (DAs), who also supervise the work of other public sector agencies and


officials at the local level (Moran et al, 2009). The DA is accountable to the Minister for LocalGovernment; technical staff is responsible to the DA administratively and to their line ministriesin technical matters. The Local Government Act provided for the establishment of DistrictDevelopment Coordination Committees (DDCCs) at each district, although these remain largelynon-functional

The Chieftainship Act 1968 defines the role of traditional chiefs, which historically serve as‘governors’ of their communities with authority over all aspects of life; with decentralisation inLesotho authority of chiefs has been rearranged. Chiefs serve in the Councils (only gazettedChiefs can be nominated to serve) and retain many of their traditional functions; however onekey function which has been taken away from them is the allocation of land.

The Local Government Act 1996 defines the powers of all local authorities, and which include,inter alia: control of natural resources and environmental protection; public health (includingwaste collection and disposal); physical planning; land/site allocation; grazing control; waterresources; services for improvement of agriculture; and forestry. However decentralisationremains to be completed, and many of these functions remain de-concentrated (i.e. localrepresentation from the line ministries) and not yet devolved to local authorities; most lineministries are yet to define the functions that will be devolved to the local level. A majorremaining challenge is fiscal decentralisation, without which it is not possible to secure effectivesectoral decentralisation.

2.3.2 Population and basic development indicatorsLesotho has a population of 1.88 million (2006 Census), 60% of which is concentrated in thefour districts that comprise the western corridor where the bulk of arable land is located andwhich has the best access to physical infrastructure, utilities and services. 56.7% of thepopulation lives in the lowlands, 12.8% in the foothills and 30.5% in the mountains and theSenqu River Valley. The urban/rural split is 25:75. Population density is low at 61 per km2,ranging from 24 in Mokhotlong to 112 in Berea. However, in terms of arable land, populationdensity rises to 658 people per km2, ranging from 485 in Thaba-Tseka up to 902 in Maseru.

Lesotho is a Least Developed Country (LDC), and currently fails to meet the criteria forgraduation in any of the categories of income, human assets and economic vulnerability. ItsHuman Development Index (HDI) stands at 0.450 (low human development), ranking 160 outof 187 countries, and showing a gradual increase since 2006.

In terms of gender, Lesotho has a Gender Inequality Index of 0.532, ranking 108 out of 187countries (2011 data). However, cultural traditions have placed women in a disadvantagedposition, in spite of their vital role in the economy (the LDHS 2009 indicated that 35% ofhouseholds are female-headed). Gender equality is in the Government’s agenda, as evidenced byinitiatives such as the introduction of quotas in Parliament and Cabinet, as well as in localcouncils. Gender is addressed as a cross-cutting issue in the NSDP.


Table 3 below provides a synthesis of basic development indicators.


Table 3 Main social indicators for Lesotho

Indicator (year) Value

Human Development Index (HDI) (2011) 0.450 (ranking 160 out of 187)

Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (constant 2005 PPP$)(2011)

1,664

Gender Inequality Index (2011) 0.532 (ranking 108 out of 187)

Population living below the poverty line (2010) 49.1%

Population in severe poverty (2011) 11.1%

Unemployment rate (2010) 23.4%

Life expectancy at birth (2011) 48.2 years

Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) (deaths per 100,000 live births)(2010)

1,155

Under 5 Mortality (per 1,000 lives) (2009) 117

Stunted children (short relative to their age) (2009) 39.2%

Severely stunted children (2009) 14.8%

Wasted children (inadequate weight relative to height) (2009) 3.8%

Underweight children (2009) 13.2%

Rate of HIV-positive population (2009) 23.0% (3rd highest prevalence inthe world)

Adult literacy rate (2005) 82.0%

2.3.3 Water supply and sanitationAround 77% of Lesotho households have access to improved water sources, whilst only 25%have access to improved sanitation; however severe water access problems are experienced in thelowlands, where about two thirds of the population live (GoL, 2012a). Access to an improvedwater source is above the 2010 average of 61% for sub-Saharan Africa, but lower than the 30%regional average in the case of access to improved sanitation (see UN, 2012).

The access to improved water sources and sanitation shows differences between the urban andthe rural population as follows (GoL, 2012d):

Access to improved water sources (2010). Rural: 63.6%; urban: 58.8%

Access to basic sanitation (2010). Rural: 53.1%; urban: 77.8%

Advances in the coverage of improved sources of water and sanitation is one of the areas underMDG7 where Lesotho is making good progress, albeit these increases are mainly in urban areasand coverage in rural areas remain a challenge (GoL, 2012e).

Water supply for Maseru is especially important due to the rapid urban population growth andrural-urban migration; as well Maseru requires water supply for industrial purposes, as it is herewhere the garment industry is concentrated. Rural-urban migration is mainly from the mountainsinto the lowlands, where most economic activity takes place, and which has been attributed tofactors such as unemployment and population pressure on agricultural land (Nokana, 2009).

The Government has embarked in the development of the Metolong Dam and Water SupplyProgramme (MDWSP), which would supply bulk water to Maseru and the surrounding lowlandsareas. The MDWSP will provide 75,000 m3 of treated water per day by 2014, enabling Maseru tomeet domestic and industrial requirements for at least the next 40 years (GoL, 2012a).

Adequate urban sanitation in the form of wastewater collection, carried sewerage and treatment,and ventilation improved pit latrines (VIPs) are provided for up to 68% of the population ofMaseru, and up to 45% in peri-urban areas. The Towns Sanitation Project improved the situation


for low-income communities by promoting the construction of VIP latrines. Regional centres areless well serviced, with sewerage collection and treatment reaching 38% of the population; inrural areas only 23% of the population are being served by sanitary latrines, incorporating adiversity of systems including VIPs (25% of all sanitary systems), slab or bucket latrines, septictanks, eco-toilets or unimproved pit latrines.

Sewerage collection and treatment was installed in the last 5 years in Maseru, with the Water andSewerage Authority (WASA) as the responsible authority (now WASCO). The sewage treatmentplant undertakes primary/secondary treatment with the final discharge going to stabilisationponds before outfall to the Caledon River downstream of the drinking water abstraction intake.The waste water treatment plants, which appears to be over-loaded, accepts industrial wastewaterwithout pre-treatment from the Thetsane industrial park (mainly textiles and electronicscomponents), raw domestic sewage, commercial wastewater (hotels, workshops, schools andinstitutions), and healthcare wastewater (hospitals, hospital laboratories).

2.3.4 EnergyLesotho generates 72 MW of electricity from the Muela hydropower station (installed capacity of78 MW), and imports about 67 MW (40 MW from Mozambique and 27 MW from RSA). Inaddition to that four mini-hydro power plants have been developed at Mantsonyane (2 MW),Semonkong (180 kW), Tlokoeng (670 kW) and Tsoelike (400 kW), but which have experiencedoperational problems due to poor maintenance, siltation and flooding. The LHDA also operatesa 500 kW mini-hydro plant at Katse Dam to supply local power requirements. (Tsehlo, 2011).

Household access to electricity is estimated at 20%, concentrated in the lowlands and the SenquRiver Valley (GoL, 2012a), the immense majority being urban households. There are some ruralelectrification programmes in the country, such as one between UNDP and DoE to provide ruralelectrification through solar systems, but which is facing a number of challenges (IFC, 2011).

Biogas digesters were developed since the 1970s, but eventually came into disrepair. Since theestablishment of Technology for Economic Development (TED- 2004), over 150 biogas systemswere constructed, but there are at least 300 systems from individual owners (Tsehlo, 2011).

The Government is exploring options to increase generation of electricity based on hydropower,wind and solar sources. Key aspects of these are described in Table 4 below. Also, as part of theLHWP Phase 2, the Mashai dam will integrate an 83 MW hydroelectric plant.

Table 4 Key characteristics of power generation options in Lesotho (source: IFC, 2011)

Hydropower Wind Solar

Significant potential,established around 400-450MW

Capital intensive, probablylarge scale projects

Sites and characteristics ofprojects still unclear

International capacity,capability and experiencenecessary for development,construction and possiblyoperation

International market forprojects, technical andfinancial

Grid-connectionpossibilities still unclear

Significant potential. Astudy by the BreezeConsortium is said to haveidentified over 6,000MW14

potential generatingcapacity

Capital intensive, probablylarge-scale projects

Sites and characteristics ofprojects still unclear

International capacity,capability and experiencenecessary for development,construction and operation

International market forprojects, technical andfinancial

Grid-connectionpossibilities still unclear

Small-scale projects beingpiloted

Financial feasibility limited,subsidies needed

Solutions prove to be veryexpensive

International supply ofequipment, local installationand maintenance

Scaling-up will be difficult,given potential burden onbudget of Government ordevelopment partners’

Partially aimed at off-gridpower supply (UNDP,DoE), partially aimed atgrid-connections (LEC)

14 Quantity modified from original source based on Matzner (nd), and which includes power supply to RSA.


At the household level, 77% of Basotho rely on biomass (mainly firewood, paraffin and dung) asthe main source of fuel for lighting, cooking and heating. Wood is the main source of energy forcooking and heating, whereas paraffin and candles are the main sources of energy for lighting.

The approximate distribution of sources of energy is shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Percentage distribution of households by main source of energy and application (source:LMS, nd, based on date from the Lesotho Demographic Survey, 2001)

Energy Source Cooking Heating Lighting

Wood 59.0% 57.0% 0.0%Dung 6.0% 8.9% 0.0%Coal 0.3% 3.5% 0.0%

Electricity 1.0% 1.2% 3.7%Natural gas 13.7% 1.5% 0.5%

Paraffin 19.2% 26.7% 55.3%Candles 0.0% 0.0% 39.2%

Crop/other waste 1.0% 1.2% 1.2%

The burning of biomass is associated to indoor air pollution, and the collection of firewood alsocontributes to land degradation, as most of it is not sustainably harvested.

2.3.5 Waste production and managementThere is little information available of waste production in Lesotho. One of the most completesources identified was the baseline assessment of waste management within Maseru City, which isconfined to solid waste and was carried out as part of the process leading to the development ofan Integrated Solid Waste Management System (ISWMS) for the city.

Only a small percentage of solid waste is collected and disposed of at the Tsosane dumpsite, andis not weighed or monitored in any way (Envirotech Services, 2006). Although there is notreatment of municipal waste, there are waste recovery centres, including: Welcome Transportand Waste Sorting (collect everything), Maseru Enviro Recycling (collect scrap metal),Environmental Culture Lesotho (collects cans), and Maseru Waste Collectors (collects plastic,white paper and cardboard) (Envirotech Services, 2006).

A 2002 study found that total waste generated in Masru was 157,552 tonnes per annum, of which82% was from commercial origin, 15% from households and 3% from industrial sources(Mvuma, 2002 cited in Envirotech Services, 2006). The Envirotech study estimated the followinglevels of waste production: 0.2 kg/capita/day for low-income residential areas; 0.3 kg/capita/dayfor middle-income residential areas; and 0.4 kg/capita/day for high-income residential areas. Interms of disposal methods, the findings were: 56% of households burned their waste; 27.7%made compost; 50.5% took it to the city’s dumpsite; 40.5% dumped in dongas and open spaces;12.7% buried the waste; 40.5% reused waste; and 5% sold their waste to recycling agents.Quantities of waste generated by administrative establishments, commercial establishments andeducational centres were estimated with varying degrees of certainty.

2.3.6 AgricultureThe LVAC considered that approximately 514,000 people were food insecure by 2011, morethan double the number for 2010 (DMA, 2011), which shows a very grim situation and points toareas that require priority attention.

Agriculture represents around 8% of the GDP (GoL, 2012a). The main crops produced inLesotho are maize (60%), sorghum (20%) and wheat (10%); most of the land is rain-fed (only asmall percentage of land is irrigated, in spite some 25,000 ha are irrigable) (GoL, 2012a). Lesothois currently not self-sufficient in terms of cereals production, and imports more than 70% of itsgrains (GoL, 2012a). The livestock sub-sector is dominated by sheep and goats, which are keptmainly for wool and mohair – the main agricultural export products. Other livestock includescattle, horses donkeys, poultry, piggery and rabbitry.


Most of the agricultural activity takes place in the lowlands, although the mountains concentratethe majority of the wool and mohair livestock. Table 6 presents a synthesis of agriculturalactivities per agro-ecological zone.

Table 6 Agricultural activities and agro-ecological conditions (source: MAFS, 2006)

Description Lowlands Foothills Mountains Senqu RiverValley

Area (km2) 5,200 (17%) 4,488 (15%) 18,047 (59%) 2,753 (9%)Altitude range (masl) < 1800 1800-2000 2000-3250 1000-2000Main crops Maize, wheat,

beans,vegetables

Maize, wheat,peas, fodder,crops, potatoes

Maize, wheat, peas,potatoes

Maize, beans,sorghum

Vegetation Crop stubble,reforestationon some hills,fruit trees nearhomesteads

Poplar and willowtrees along streamsand gullies, cropstubble, a lot offruit trees nearhomesteads

Denuded grassland,indigenous shrubs insome river valleys,stunted peach treesnear homesteads

Denuded dryshrubs, brush,fruit trees invalleys.

Summer grazing Aroundvillages

Around villages High mountaincattle posts

Unsuitable, toodry

% of livestock

Cattle 47% 15% 33% 5%

Sheep 29% 6% 61% 4%

Goats 27% 14% 48% 11%

Pigs 60% 19% 14% 7%

Horses 27% 14% 55% 4%

Donkeys 50% 14% 31% 5%

Over 90% of the farmers are subsistence growers, producing little or no surplus for sale in themarket; these subsistence farmers produce most of the food grown in the country (MAFS, 2006).Farming is dominated by low-input, low-output traditional rain-fed farming, which gives yields ofless than 1 tonne/ha. The high prevalence of HIV/AIDS has also reduced the availability offamily labour, resulting in further decreases in agricultural productivity (MAFS, 2006). Farmingproductivity is also affected by poor and increasingly degraded soils and by climate change (e.g.late onset of rains in the highlands, increased rainfall intensity, drought periods).

The production of the three main crops (maize, sorghum and wheat) has decreased since2000/01, being now significantly lower; the areas planted increased during 4 or 5 years after1997/98, and then decreased for 3-4 years, although the increase in planted area from 2005/06 to2007/08 did not result in higher production (Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The 2007/08 droughtresulted in crop failure, and the harvested amounts have hardly recovered since then (Bureau ofStatistics, 2010). The Lesotho Food Security and Vulnerability Monitoring Report for 2011(DMA, 2011) concluded that the total planted area had decrease approximately 1% incomparison with the previous year and that yield per ha decreased by approximately 42% formaize and 81% for sorghum, and had increased by 23% for wheat. This gave as a balance a foodshortage of 244,675 MT, a general decrease in cereal production of 60% for maize, 80% forsorghum and 20% for wheat, resulting in shortage of food requirements at the household level.

Livestock productivity is low in terms of off-take and animal fibre, especially due to poor animalhealth and husbandry, low conception rates, weal lambing/kidding, weaning and retarded growth(MAFS, 2006). Other key factors that affect livestock productivity include widespread stock theft(especially in areas adjacent to RSA) and widespread rangeland degradation (MAFS, 2006).Livestock numbers have remained relatively stable over the past years, with average herd size for1999-2007 being 675,000 for cattle, 1,000,000 for sheep and 780,000 for goats (Bureau ofStatistics, 2010). Important livestock products include meat, milk, wool and mohair.

The wool and mohair sub-sector is fundamental to Lesotho’s economy, as 50% of the ruralhouseholds depend on these products for their livelihoods, and are the only agriculturalcommodities that are exported to international markets and bring some foreign exchange


earnings that benefit the country’s citizens directly (UNIDO, 2010). Production is about 3,000metric tonnes of Merino wool and about 600 metric tonnes of angora type mohair per year,which are exported in their raw state to RSA (UNIDO, 2010). In terms of fishing, capture fishingand rural aquaculture are of a subsistence type; however cold water aquaculture has beenintroduced as a result of the LHWP with a potential for becoming a source of foreign exchangethrough exports of rainbow trout (Bureau of Statistics, 2010).

2.3.7 IndustryThe manufacturing sector is dominated by the garment industry, which has expanded rapidlysince 1999. By 2009 it was employing 21,349 persons (corresponding to about 78% ofemployment in the manufacturing sector) and generating around 55 million Maloti (Bureau ofStatistics, 2010).

As for mining five licences has been issued. Currently there is one commercial diamond mine atLetseng, which is also the main mining operation with 1,100+ employees; Liqhobong diamondmine is under care maintenance; Mothae and Kao are on trial mining or pre-production stage,and in Lemphane a prospecting licence has been awarded (SARW, 2010). There are also threecommercial aggregate quarried at Morija, Peka and Ha Ntsi and some mining of clay deposits.Also, work on geochemical mapping to find potential economic minerals other than diamonds ison-going. (SARW, 2010).

2.4 Vision 2020 and the National Strategic Development PlanThe Lesotho Vision 2020 provides a long-term orientation for the development of the country,on the basis of which short- to medium-term plans are to be formulated. The vision statement is:

“By the year 2020 Lesotho shall be a stable democracy, a united and prosperous nation at peace with itself and itsneighbours. It shall have a healthy and well-developed human resource base. Its economy will be strong, itsenvironment well managed and its technology well established.”

It is important to highlight that ‘a well managed environment’ is a core component of the long-term vision for Lesotho. The Vision 2020 document presents a list of preliminary indicators forthe National Development Strategy to implement Vision 2020. The environmental andenvironment-related indicators that have been used for the 10-year review of Vision 2020 are15:

Arable land. It currently stands at 9% showing no changes from the 1998 baseline, and no targets havebeen set.

Land area under forestation. It currently stands at 12,600 ha in comparison with 10,632 ha for the 2000baseline and target of 16,380 ha and 21,000 ha for 2016 and 2020 respectively.

Waste recovery rates. It currently stands at 72% in comparison with 67% for the 1997 baseline andtargets of 75% and 79% for 2016 and 2020 respectively.

The recently approved National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) covers the period2012/13 - 2016/17 and serves as an implementation strategy for the Lesotho Vision 2020. Thefollowing Strategic Objectives are defined:

1) Pursue high, shared and employment creating economic growth;2) Develop key infrastructure;3) Enhance the skills base, technology adoption and foundation for innovation;4) Improve health, combat HIV and AIDS and reduce vulnerability;5) Reverse environmental degradation and adapt to climate change; and6) Promote peace, democratic governance and build effective institutions.

This Plan emphasizes the necessity of achieving sustained and broad based economic growth as

the most effective route for poverty reduction. It sets out the intended growth and development

strategy and provides strategic direction to all agencies on the resource allocations and budgeting

15 Other indicators are included under the strategic area “a well managed environment”, but which either do not referto environmental performance, or which are forecasts rather than performance indicators. Such is the case of:‘rangeland (ha)’ for which it is not clear how an increase in rangeland area is an indication of environmentalperformance, where the concern is on the management of rangelands including the reduction of livestock stockinglevels to keep within carrying capacity; and ‘soil waste (tonnes)’, which is more a forecast than a target.


decisions that will be integrated into the Government’s annual Medium-Term Expenditure

Framework (MTEF) and its Public Sector Investment Programme (PSIP).

The NSDP includes a Strategic Objective (No. 5) to reverse environmental degradation and

adapt to climate change. Under this Strategic Objective, the following Strategic Actions are

included:

1) Reduce land degradation and protect water sources;

2) Increase biodiversity conservation and promote sustainable use;

3) Strengthen range management institutions and range carrying capacity;

4) Improve national resilience to climate change;

5) Promote and increase the greening of the economy;

6) Improve land use, administration and management; and

7) Improve environment and climate change governance.

More specific activities are identified under each of the above Strategic Actions. Strategic actions

identified under other Strategic Objectives are also relevant for environmental management. The

following can be highlighted:

Strategic Objective: Pursue high, shared and employment creating economic growth: water harvesting and irrigation

(relevant to climate change adaptation); development of a land and water management policy

framework; reduction of vulnerability and risk management (including conservation farming and

climate proofing of the agriculture sector).

Strategic Objective: Develop key infrastructure: reduction of pollution due to transport; treatment of

industrial waste and other effluent; afforestation; renewable energies;

Strategic Objective: Improve health, combat HIV and AIDS and reduce vulnerability: disaster risk management;

early warning systems; water and energy security.

However the NSDP also entails risks to environmental governance, which should be carefully

considered. More specifically, Strategic Objective 1 on Investment Climate foresees the review of

the Environment Act and the EIA system so as not to over-burden businesses.

The NSDP M&E framework is under development; it will consist of two tiers of indicators: ‘coreindicators’ (monitored at national level) and ‘sectoral indicators’ (monitored at sectoral level).


Table 7 shows draft environment and climate change related indicators.


Table 7 NSDP Strategic Actions and Indicators of environmental relevance

Indicator Tier Observations

NSDP Goal: Reverse environmental degradation and adapt to climate change

Area covered by forest (% of totalarea)

Core indicator

Sectoral indicator

Indirect indication of improvements in landdegradation, biodiversity and soil and waterconservation.

Rehabilitated areas affected by soilerosion (ha)

Core indicator

Sectoral indicator

Will require a carefully designed methodology tomeasure. The concern should not be only onrehabilitation but also on protection of existing soils.

National financial mechanismsestablished to facilitate access toclimate change finance

Sectoral indicator Is linked to the development of a national climatechange policy.

Number of climate changeadaptation and mitigationprogrammes implemented

Sectoral indicator Can be a very general indicator, as it does not relate toresults nor does it differentiate between adaptation(priority for Lesotho) and mitigation.

Climate change strategy and policydeveloped and implemented

Sectoral indicator Should be financed by EU GCCA Facility funds.

Level of pollutants in the air (µg/m3):PM10, NO2, and SO2

Sectoral indicator Air pollution is not a key concern in Lesotho; theseparameters should not be prioritised.

Level of pollutants in the water:TDS, EC, PO4, NO3

Sectoral indicator Can provide an indirect measurement of soil erosion,as well as indication of run-off of agrochemicalproducts. Should be complemented with other keyparameters such as BOD, COD, pH, turbidity,oxygen demand, coliforms (total and faecal) in orderto provide a better indication of pollution bysewerage, soil erosion and industrial effluents.

Number of people involved insustainable bio-trade

Sectoral indicator Measurement may be complicated, as it may requiresome sort of registration/certification system.

Reduction of GHG emissions (% oftonnes of CO2e reduced)

Sectoral indicator

Finance mobilised for climate changemitigation and adaptation (%increase)

Sectoral indicator

Economic loss from natural disasters(% of GDP)

Sectoral indicator

NSDP Goal: develop key infrastructure

Population with access to safe andclean water (%): rural population;urban population

Core indicator Linked also with MDG7 indicators

Population with access to basicsanitation (%): rural population andurban population

Core indicator Linked also to MDG7 indicators

Population connected to electricity(%)

Core indicator Improved access to electricity may reducepressure on biomass resources (landdegradation)

Proportion of firms with pre-treatment plants

Sectoral indicator

2.5 Environmental policies and planningThe mandate on environmental protection in Lesotho derives from Section 36 of theConstitution (1993): “Lesotho shall adopt policies designed to protect and enhance the natural and culturalenvironment of Lesotho for the benefit of both present and future generations and shall endeavour to assure to all itscitizens a sound and safe environment adequate for their health and well-being”.


The first environmental policy document was developed in 1989: the National EnvironmentalAction Plan (NEAP), followed in 1994 by the National Action Plan to Implement Agenda21 (NAP), which built on the NEAP and incorporated sectoral priorities and national plans forimplementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) on biodiversity, climate changeand desertification.

These early policy documents gave way to the National Environmental Policy for Lesotho(1998), establishing objectives aligned to the national development priorities, focusing on: thesocial and economic dimensions; the management and conservation of natural resources;protection and improvement of environmental quality; and the promotion of communityparticipation. The Environmental Policy recognises the inter-sectoral linkages and the need for“integrated and systemic views and actions”.

In order to understand the context for this succession of environmental policies, it must benoted that the National Environment Secretariat (NES) was created in 1994 as a direct result of arecommendation made in the 1989 NEAP to establish an institutional framework for themanagement of environmental issues16. The Environmental Policy falls under the responsibilityof the Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Culture (MTEC).

Under the Environment Act (2008) the Department of Environment is responsible forproducing a National Environmental Action Plan every five years, to be binding on allstakeholders concerned. At District level the District Development Coordinating Committees arealso to prepare, every five years, District Environmental Action Plans, as well as District levelState of the Environment reports. Finally all line ministries are to prepare EnvironmentalManagement Plans. These provisions from the Environment Act (2008) are yet to beinstrumentalised.

The National Vision for Lesotho (Vision 2020) further confirmed the commitment toenvironmental protection (see above).

Other policies and planning documents of relevance include:

Water and Sanitation Policy (2007);

National Soil and Water Conservation Policy (zero-draft, 2012);

Interim Strategy for the Water and Sanitation Sector;

IWRM Strategy;

Irrigation Policy (draft);

Industrial Wastewater Management Policy;

National Wetlands Management Programme (2005);

National Action Plan for Capacity Development in Disaster Risk Reduction 2007-2015;

Drought Management Strategy;

National Drought Contingency Plan;

National Strategy on Lesotho’s Biological Diversity;

National Biosafety Policy;

National Implementation Programme (NIP) for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent OrganicPollutants (POPs);

National Adaptation Programme of Action on Climate Change (NAPA);

Agricultural Sector Strategy (2003);

National Food Security Policy and Strategic Guidelines;

National Action Plan for Food Security (NAPFS) 2007-2017;

National Range Resources Policy (2011, draft);

National Forestry Policy (2008);

Lesotho National Forestry Programme 2008-2018;

National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy;

National Land Use Policy (2011, draft);

16 The NES was originally established under the Prime Minister’s Office; subsequently it was moved to the Ministry ofEnvironment, Gender and Youth Affairs and in 2003 to the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture. It is nowknown as the Department of Environment (DoE).


Lesotho National Action Programme in Natural Resources Management, Combating Desertificationand Mitigating the Effects of Drought (1999);

Environmental Education Strategy;

Energy Policy (2003) (draft);

Transport Sector Policy (2006);

Transport Sector Environmental Policy and Action Plan.

2.6 Institutional17 and regulatory framework for environmentalmanagement

Responsibilities for environmental protection, management of natural resources and climatechange fall under a large number of different ministries, departments and agencies, creatingdifficulties for ensuring effectiveness due to thin boundaries in the division of areas ofresponsibility and difficulties for coordination.

There is a large corpus of legislation in Lesotho that deals with the environment, orenvironmental matters; part of it was developed decades back but has not been officiallysuperseded, with some exceptions. The sections below make reference to the most relevantpieces of legislation; Appendix 3 contains a list of legislation pertaining to the environment.

2.6.1 General environmental managementFramework environmental legislation

The framework environmental legislation is the Environment Act, 2008, with a similar scope tothe original Environment Act (No 15 of 2001). The Environment Act is very broad in its scope,with wide ranging provisions; nevertheless implementation remains a big challenge, and most ofthe provisions are yet to be instrumentalised.

Lesotho is also signatory to a number of multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEAs),although implementation to date has been very weak:

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);

United Nations Convention on Combatting Desertification (UNCCD);

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES);

Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention);

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs);

Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)Region (1995);

Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community(SADC) Region (2000).

Decentralisation

The GoL is engaging in an ambitious decentralisation process, led by the MLGC together withthe Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP). To date some of the functions ofthe Line Ministries at the local level have been deconcentrated at the District level. Under theLocal Government Act (2006), some functions will be devolved to the local level. However thisprocess is slow and the functions have not yet been identified; the most advanced in this respectare the functions on roads from the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MPWT) as well assome functions from the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MHSW).

Line Ministry for environmental protection

Environmental protection is responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism, Environment andCulture (MTEC). It is interesting to notice that environmental protection is primarily seen in

17 At the end of this CEP assignment the Government of Lesotho changed and three new ministries were created,which are not reflected in this section: development planning (formerly together with finance), mining (formerly withinthe MNR) and social welfare (formerly together with health). The former Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is nowthe Ministry of Energy, Meteorology and Water Affairs.


the context of its contribution to the development of the tourism industry, as evidenced by asimple discourse analysis of the Ministry’s Mission statement: “The Ministry of Tourism, Environmentand Culture is committed to promote environmentally and culturally sustainable development, making Lesotho thenumber one tourism destination in the region through the provision of high quality service and creation of enablingenvironment for the private sector driven and community based tourism development”.

The above reflection, together with the fact that the NES was removed from the PrimeMinister’s Office and located as a department within the MTEC, already indicate a weakcommitment to environmental protection. In terms of budget allocation the MTEC is also one ofthe weakest ministries, with approximately only 0,16% of the budget for 2012/13 (PSIP draftdocument). The DoE is also understaffed, which does not allow it to perform its mandateeffectively.

The Department of Environment (DoE) (formerly the NES) was established in 1994, and isthe main institution aimed at environmental protection. It plays an advisory and regulatory role inenvironmental protection, including the setting of standards and guidelines, monitoringcompliance, dissemination of environmental information and awareness creation. The DoE hasresponsibility for producing the State of Environment report every five years, although the lackof baseline data remains a large impediment for effective monitoring.

One of the main functions of the DoE is the management of the Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) system, which is the main tool available for the control of environmentalimpact and pollution from industrial activities (in the case of Lesotho, mainly mining, thegarment industry and the LHWP). This is managed under the Environmental ImpactAssessment and Pollution Control Division, which is currently staffed by three persons.

The Data Division is meant to be a clearing-house for all environmental information in Lesothoand is responsible of producing the State of the Environment report. Within the Division there isa Committee on Environmental Data Management (CEDAMA), with the aim of advisingGovernment on the management of environmental data.

The Education and Outreach Division takes charge of communication matters. TheBiodiversity and Conservation Division promotes the conservation of indigenous flora andfauna, and engages in activities such as identification of areas of biodiversity significance,establishment and co-management of Protected Areas. Finally, the Environmental PlanningDivision provides guidance in the development of national and district environmental actionplans and supports the development and implementation of land use plans.

Environmental Units and Line Ministries

One of the key goals of the National Environmental Policy is the mainstreaming ofenvironmental considerations at all levels of decision-making. One of the strategies - and now arequirement under the Environment Act (2008) - to achieve environmental integration acrosssectors is through the establishment of Environmental Units (EUs) within the PlanningDivision of each Ministry. These EUs should assume responsibility for ensuring compliance withthe Environment Act and liaise and coordinate with the DoE on all environmental matters. Anyline Ministry charged with the management of any segment of the environment should submit anannual report to the DoE and report any environmental contraventions relating to its sphere ofinfluence.

With regards to EIA, EUs have the following roles and responsibilities:

identify environmental problems posed by Ministry sponsored projects;

ensure that remedial actions are taken;

prepare plans and supervise EIAs for Ministry projects;

assist with project review when necessary;

liaise with DoE for the approval of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS);

advise communities on particular aspects of environmental concerns within their particular sector;

monitor and conduct post-EIA audits of projects;

participate in resource accounting and the preparation of the annual state of environment reports.


The creation of Environmental Units within the line ministries is yet to materialise; resourcepersons were trained by DoE to act as environmental officers, but most have left their jobs sincethen. Two exceptions to the above are the creation of the Environmental & Social ManagementUnit (ESMU) in the MPWT, under the Roads Department, which was a condition under theWorld Bank supported ITP programme; the second one is the environmental officer in theMines Division (MNR).

Environmental institutions foreseen under the Environment Act, 2008

A number of environmental institutions are foreseen under the Environment Act (2008), yet tobe created. Most importantly is the establishment of a National Environmental Council(NEC), comprising several ministers, a wide cross-section of stakeholder representation andchaired by the Minister responsible for the environment18. The NEC would take responsibilityfor the drafting of environmental policy, harmonising policies, plans and activities of governmentdepartments and ensuring coordination amongst stakeholders engaged in environmentalprotection.

An Environmental Co-ordinating Committee (ECC) is also to be established, which willensure maximum cooperation and coordination amongst line Ministries and other organisationsdealing with environmental protection and management. At the local level it is envisaged to havea District Environmental Officer in each District, who will be responsible for promotingenvironmental awareness in the district and reporting on matters relating to the sustainable use ofnatural resources. Finally the Environment Act (2008) foresees the creation of anEnvironmental Tribunal that will hear appeals against decisions of the competent authority.

2.6.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systemEIA is one the main instruments that the Government has to ensure that projects or activitieswill not derive in significant environmental impacts. On the basis of the EIA process, the DoEmay reject project proposals on environmental grounds, or establish environmental conditions totheir approval.

The EIA system is covered under Part V of the Environment Act (2008). The EIA Regulationsare still in draft. The MTEC has also issued EIA Guidelines (2009). Sectoral guidelines havebeen compiled to support the DoE in the reviews and decision-making.

All projects and activities specified in Part A of the Environment Act’s First Schedule require anEnvironmental Impact Assessment Licence issued by the DoE, although not all suchprojects will necessarily require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A new EIS may berequested by the DoE to an operation that is in possession of an EIA Licence, but which wassuffered a substantial change or where a significant environmental threat materialises that wasnot envisaged at the time of the EIA.

As a first step in the process the developer has to submit a Project Brief19, on the basis of whichthe DoE will determine if a full EIA is required. Based on the Project Brief the DoE may: (1) incase the project is unlikely to have significant environmental impacts, approve the project withany conditions that may be stated; (2) in case the project is likely to have significantenvironmental impacts, invite written or oral comments from the public and may consult theaffected community; (3) decide, in consultation with the Line Ministry that an EIA is requireddue to its potential significant impacts on the environment.

18 Other members are the Ministers of: Tourism, Environment and Culture (Chair); Trade, Industry and Marketing;Agriculture; Public Works and Transport; Local Government and Chieftainship; Finance and Development Planning;Health; Natural Resources; Forestry and Land Reclamation; Science and Technology; the Principal Secretary; LesothoCouncil of Non-governmental Organisations (1); the business community (1); Lesotho National Council of Women(1); a registered youth association (1); and an environmental expert (1).19 The Project Brief must indicate at least the following: (i) the nature of the project; (ii) the activities proposed to beundertaken; (iii) the areas(s) of air, land or water that may be affected by the activity; (iv) the possible products or by-products anticipated and their environmental consequences; (v) the number of people the project is likely to employ, inboth the construction and operations phases; (vi) any other matters that may be prescribed; (vii) any other matters asthe Director may require from the Developer, before or after he has submitted the Project Brief.


The EIS is to be undertaken by experts approved by the DoE after consultation with the LineMinistry, and the cost borne by the developer. On the basis of the EIA the DoE will invitepublic comments on the EIS in general, or specifically invite those persons who will most likelybe affected by the project to make comments. The DoE may also decide to hold a public hearingfor the affected parties.

It must be noted that the opportunities offered for public participation take place aftersubmission of the EIS, whereas international good practice establishes that public participationshould start as early as possible in the process, ideally from the screening phase.

The EIA Licence may contain terms and conditions necessary to mitigate negative impacts andpromote sustainable development and sound environmental management practices.

2.6.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is required for any Bill, regulation, policy,programme or plan that could have a significant impact on the environment, according to Part Bof the Environment Act’s First Schedule. However, the procedures and regulations have not yetbeen developed and no SEA has been carried out in Lesotho to date.

2.6.4 Water management (water use and water quality)The basic legislation for water management is the Water Act (No 15 of 2008). Also of relevanceto water management is the Environment Act (2008) as well as the SADC Protocol on SharedWatercourse Systems in the SADC Region and the Revised Protocol on SharedWatercourses in the SADC (not yet in force). The following principles govern the Water Act:(i) sustainable utilisation of water resources; (ii) intergenerational equity; (iii) integrated waterresources management; (iv) equitable distribution of water and sanitation services; (v) publicparticipatory approach; (vi) precautionary principle; (vii) polluter pays principle; (viii) integrationof environmental and social issues into water resource management; and (ix) sector wideapproach to water resources management.

Under the Water Act (2008) all water resources are owned by the Basotho Nation, held in trustby the King on their behalf.

Water management is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR)20. The MNR is one of the strongest ministries, in terms of budget allocation it is to getabout 33% of the budget allocation for 2012/13 (draft PSIP document), mainly due toexpenditures in the Metolong Dam and rural electrification. The MNR has responsibility over thedevelopment and operations in the energy, water and minerals sub-sectors.

The Minister (MNR) may declare, in consultation with the Minister responsible for land, wetlandprotected areas and protected natural springs. The use and abstraction of water is subject to aWater Use Permit issues by the DWA, which may stipulate the volumes of water that may beused or abstracted.

The different institutions that have a remit on water management include:

Commissioner of Water (CoW): the figure of the CoW was created under the Water Act(2008), and has responsibilities on, inter alia, policy advice, implementation of the water andsanitation policy and coordination of water management activities. The classification of waterresources, including the stipulation of quantity and quality parameters to be achieved in relationto different classes of water resources is also under responsibility of the CoW (Art. 14). Theoffice of the Commissioner includes four units: Policy Planning and Strategy Unit (PPSU)including the Environmental Unit, the Accountancy Unit, the Monitoring & Evaluation Unit, thePlanning Unit and the Water Resources Unit.

Department of Water Affairs (DWA): the DWA is responsible for the management of surfaceand groundwater resources, collection and processing of water sector information, assessment,

20 Recently changes in government have taken place, and the water sector is now under the Ministry of Energy,Meteorology and Water Affairs.


planning and development of water resources and for the administration of water sectorlegislation. The DWA maintains the hydrological and hydro-geological network, and includes thefollowing divisions: Water Resources; Water Pollution Control; Hydrology; Hydrogeology;Wetlands Unit and Administration.

The DWA undertakes assessment and monitoring of water quality and quantity, and is mandatedto issue permits for water abstraction and construction of boreholes and water structures.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA): the LHDA is a body corporateresponsible for the planning and implementation of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project(LHWP); it is also responsible for the operation and development of bulk water transfer schemesfrom the highlands to RSA. In terms of water services, it is in charge of implementing ruralwater and sanitation projects in the catchment areas for the bulk water reservoirs.

Department of Environment (DoE): the DoE has responsibilities relative to water asstipulated under the Environment Act (2008), mainly in relation to the issuing of effluentlicences, issuing of water quality standards and regulations, and the overall responsibility formonitoring and enforcement of water quality. DoE functions in related to water are largelyunderdeveloped.

Water quality standards are to be elaborated by the DoE according to the Environment Act(2008) (Part VI on environmental quality standards), including effluent discharge standards. Todate only draft standards for drinking water quality have been produced; in absence of these useis made of international standards, such as those from the World Health Organisation (WHO) orfrom RSA. The office of the CoW is undertaking a study to develop Water Quality Standards ondomestic water, drinking water and effluent.

All effluents from a trade or industrial undertaking must be discharged into the sewerage systemonly, and be in possession of an Effluent Discharge Licence, issued by the DoE. A moreambiguous provision is made for anyone carrying out a project or activity likely to pollute theenvironment in excess of any standards and guidelines, for which a Pollution Licence may beissued by the DoE. No effluent discharge licences or pollution licences have been issued to date.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (MFLR): the MFLR plays a role in soil andwater conservation due to the importance of forest cover for water retention and for the controlof water flow regimes. The Soil and Water Conservation Department engages in the constructionof water capture and storage structures used for small-scale agriculture, such as water harvesting.It is the DWA that deals with larger-scale structures. The MFLR coordinates closely with theDWA in the protection of wetlands.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS): the MAFS plays a role in watermanagement especially with regards to irrigation, which should be guided by the NationalIrrigation Policy, but which has not been officially approved.

Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MHSW): the MHSW is responsible for health servicesand sanitation. It has an Environmental Health Division with staff at district level to carry outenvironmental health regulatory duties, such as inspecting sanitation facilities for the approval ofbusiness permits.

Local authorities: local authorities are responsible for the management of catchment areas intheir area of jurisdiction; as well, they are to produce catchment management plans andpromote community participation. Such plans have not yet being developed, and the functionsfrom the MNR to be devolved to local authorities are yet to be defined.

Other institutions are foreseen under the Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy (2007), such as thecreation of an Asset Management Agency that would coordinate large investments forexpansion of water distribution networks and other related infrastructure. The Policy alsoforesees the creation of a Bulk Water Authority, which would operate and maintain large damsand reservoirs, whilst WASCO would be responsible for the treatment and distribution of treatedwater. Finally a Regulator is to be created to regulate aspects related to tariffs for treated waterand distribution.


At a regional (transboundary) level, the formation of ORASECOM demonstrates how theconsideration of regional context, power asymmetry, problem structure, and knowledge all helpto understand the emergence of the Orange-Senqu water regime. Consideration of the regionalcontext in which regime components emerged provides important insights. Components of theOrange-Senqu regime cannot be fully understood without considering the significant transitionsfrom colonialism to independence, and apartheid to democracy. Much of the experience in thebasin resonates strongly with the hypothesis that strong political relationships can enable theestablishment of agreements while wider tensions can stall the processes of cooperation (EU,2011). The hydro-political history of the Orange-Senqu river basin also shows the use of wateragreements as a tool to influence regional integration; this was true for South Africa duringapartheid, but also for the SADC region after RSA transition to democracy where the regionalwater protocol was seen by many as a powerful tool for converging states. What this suggests isthat the dialogue between regional integration and water cooperation may move in bothdirections with wider political and economic relationships affecting the prospects for watercooperation, and water cooperation affecting the wider prospects for political and economicrelationships.

In terms of Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E), the CoW is responsible, under the Water Act2008 of producing an annual State of Water Resources report. The first report is due by mid-2012. A recent study (Vad and Kiwango, 2011) analysed the water sector M&E system,identifying options to turn it into a functional system that can inform planning processes. Theenvisaged system consists of the following main components (Vad and Kiwango, 2011):

Water policy monitoring: overview over implementation of the water and sanitation policy and keysector indicators for monitoring the performance of selected policy strategies.

Management information of sector institutions data related to the mandate of the particularinstitution mainly used for institutional management and planning, progress and performancemonitoring.

Water sector studies and documentation: availing the results of special studies on sector issues liketechnical audits, special in-depth studies on water consumption patterns, water quality, erosion andgroundwater, catchment management, etc.

2.6.5 Provision of Water and Sanitation21

Provision of water and sanitation is regulated under the Water Act (2008), under which the CoWis responsible for the formulation of the Water and Sanitation Strategy. Service providers areregulated under the Lesotho Electricity and Water Authority Act (2008).

The Department of Rural Water Supply (DRWS) is responsible for supporting ruralcommunities (about 82% of the population) with water and sanitation services, whilst localauthorities have responsibility in the maintenance of water supply in villages. Under the WaterAct 2008 local authorities are responsible for water and sanitation services, but these functionsare not yet decentralised. The rural water systems are legally owned by the Community Councils,who manage them through Village Water and Health Committees (Vad and Kiwango, 2011).DRWS is responsible for overseeing water and sanitation services in rural areas that are providedthrough community managed water schemes and support to on-site sanitation.

The Water and Sewerage Company (WASCO), formerly WASA (Water and SewerageAuthority) is responsible for the provision of water and sanitation in urban areas. The LesothoLowlands Water Supply Unit (LLWSU) is responsible for bulk supply of water to the denselypopulated areas in the lowlands of Lesotho, covering Metolong dam, water treatment andtransmission to Maseru and nearby centres. The Metolong Authority has been established tooversee implementation.

21 Recent changes in government structures have taken place. The water sector was formerly under the Ministry ofNatural Resources, whereas it is now under the new Ministry of Energy, Meteorology and Water.


2.6.6 Biodiversity and protected areasThe protection of biodiversity is under the remit of the Department of Environment (DoE)and regulated by the Environment Act (2008), as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) to which Lesotho is a party and which is reflected in the National Biodiversity StrategicAction Plan (NBSAP). Implementation of the NSBAP by the DoE (Biodiversity ConservationUnit) has been very limited due to lack of financial and human resources. For example, a targetwas established under the NSBAP to achieve key in-situ conservation strategies in 10% of theland area by 2010, but only 6.9% has been achieved (DoE, 2009a). The land tenure system,whereas negotiation with the communities must take place to establish such areas has beenhighlighted by the Government as the main obstacle.

The DoE also has responsibility for the generation of information on biodiversity status andtrends; however this information is not regularly monitored and the most complete survey (NES,2000) dates from 2000. The Biodiversity Conservation Unit has one Assistant EnvironmentOfficer in each District, as part of the de-concentrated structure, and the functions to bedevolved to the local level are yet to be determined. Three Park Rangers are also at the NationalPark, but lack equipment (e.g. radio equipment, protective equipment for fire-fighting) andmobility (vehicles).

The DoE works closely with the MNR on wetland protection, as biodiversity is mainlyconcentrated in the wetlands; however the wetlands protection functions are allegedly in theprocess of being transferred to the MFLR.

At the local level, local authorities have a role in establishing appropriate structures for theimplementation of the NBSAP; empowering local structures to manage their own naturalresources; engage in intensive public awareness campaigns on the management of biologicalresources; and ensuring biodiversity conservation benefits local communities.

The MFLR also plays a role in biodiversity protection. The National Forestry Policy 2008addresses the conservation and management of indigenous forests as well as the conservation ofbiological diversity. The National Forestry Programme 2008-2018 recalls that “internationally, loss ofbiodiversity from forests and its conservation is top of the agenda”, and clarifies the value of Lesotho’sremaining patches and groves of natural indigenous forests as habitats for biodiversity. It sets anobjective related to the conservation of natural forests and defines a strategy for localmanagement of indigenous forest resources. The draft National Range Resources Policy (underthe MFLR) also addresses the conservation of biodiversity as an objective.

2.6.7 ForestsForestry falls under the remit of the Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (MFLR)and the main piece of legislation regulating forestry is the Forestry Act of 1998. The DoE alsoplays a role in the development of procedures, guidelines and measures necessary for thesustainable use of areas at risk from environmental degradation. According to the EnvironmentAct (2008) such areas are to be identified by the local authorities, and the criteria to determine ifan area is at risk from environmental degradation are: (i) if it is prone to soil erosion; (ii)vegetation cover has been removed or is likely to be removed at a rate faster than it is beingreplaced; or (iii) any other land use activity in the area is likely to lead to environmentaldegradation.

Under the Local Government Act 1996, local authorities have responsibilities in forestry,particularly with regards to preservation, improvement and control of designated forests in theirareas. The District Development Coordinating Committees, as part of their DistrictEnvironment Action Plans, should specify the areas at risk that should be targeted forafforestation or reforestation. The implementation of these provisions is incipient at themoment.

The Forestry Act (1998) establishes the figure of the Chief Forestry Officer, in charge of, interalia, the conservation, management and establishment of forests, including protection andpreservation of water resources in forest reserves (in coordination with the DWA) and the


promotion of forestry and agroforestry in agricultural, pastoral and other areas (in coordinationwith the MAFS).

The Forestry Act foresees the preparation of a Forestry Sector Plan, which is still pending. AllForest Reserves must have a corresponding Forest Management Plan. Other forest categoriesare: private forests, community forests and co-operative forests.

The utilisation of forests (e.g. tree feeling, harvesting of forest products, removal of fuel wood,grazing, planting of crops) is subject to the possession of a licence, issued by the Chief ForestryOfficer. However these provisions have not been implemented.

The MFLR prepared the Lesotho National Forestry Programme 2008-2018 to implement theForestry Policy. This programme includes 13 objectives under the following four categories:sustainable forest management; social and economic dimension; public participation; andconservation. It identifies 14 strategies designed to achieve the objectives.

2.6.8 WetlandsThe Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy 2007, whose implementation is responsibility of theCoW, addresses the adoption and implementation of internationally recognised principles onwetlands management, and calls for the implementation of mechanisms for the conservation ofwetlands. The protection and management of wetlands initially falls under the responsibility ofthe Wetlands Unit within the DWA, and under the guidance of the Wetlands ManagementProgramme.

However the MFLR also engages in wetlands management, and is making a case for the transferof responsibilities for the management of wetlands from the MNR to the MFLR on the groundsof possessing better expertise. Wetlands management initiatives by the MNR and the MFLR arecarried out independently and with little or no coordination. As an example, the MNR-producedWetlands Management Programme (2005) is not being used by the MFLR; also, projects onwetlands conservation are being initiated under the auspices of SADC/ORASECOM by MNR,in which MFLR is not involved.

Lesotho is party to the Ramsar Convention and has so far declared one Ramsar site, theLets’eng-la – Letsie wetland, situated about 200 km south-east of Maseru, in the QuthingDistrict, and which covers an area of 434 ha. The site is within the Maloti Mountains and is partof the Maloti-Drakensberg system.

2.6.9 Air quality and noiseAir quality and noise is regulated under the Environment Act (2008). A Pollution Licence isrequired to emit pollutants in excess of those established in the standards and guidelines, to beissued by the DoE. To date no guidelines have been established for air quality or noise inLesotho, nor pollution licences issued.

2.6.10 Solid and hazardous waste managementUnder the Environment Act (2008) a Waste Licence (issued by the DoE) is required to own oroperate a disposal site, generate, store, transport or dispose of hazardous waste. Importation orexportation of hazardous waste is prohibited. Standards for the classification of hazardous waste,or for its management have not yet been developed. Schedule Two of the Environment Act(2008) defines a list of hazardous chemicals and substances that are banned in Lesotho.

A draft Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste Management Bill was prepared in 2005, buthas not yet been approved. It establishes provisions for the elaboration of a National WasteManagement Policy and Local Waste Management Plans; defines provisions for the registrationof waste operators and the issuing of waste licences; and defines the responsibilities of localauthorities in relation to collection and disposal of solid waste.

Management of hazardous health waste is recently regulated by the Hazardous (Health Care)Waste Management Regulations 2011. These regulations focus on waste segregation anddisposal, and their implementation is responsibility of the MHWS.


2.6.11 Climate changeThe NSDP recognises climate change as being of national importance; climate change isinscribed in one of the NSDP’s strategic goals (Strategic Goal 5: reverse environmentaldegradation and adapt to climate change). Under this goal focus is on improving the country’sresilience to climate change, for which climate change must be mainstreamed across all sectorsand a national climate change strategy and agenda consolidated.

The NSDP also recognises climate change as one of the main risks that can affect NSDPimplementation. References to climate change are found particularly with regards to theagriculture sector (need to climate proofing the sector and reduce vulnerabilities); in theinfrastructure sector (need to climate proof infrastructure); in the technology and innovationsector (improve scientific capacity to assess climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation) and insocial protection (in relation to disaster risk management). Climate change could likewise havebeen referred to in relation to other sectors, especially health, water and education.

The key institution dealing with climate change in Lesotho is the Lesotho MeteorologicalService (LMS), as focal point to the UNFCCC. The Disaster Management Authority (DMA)is also playing an important role in the context on the expansion and enhancement of earlywarning systems.

The LMS is responsible for the capturing and processing of weather and climatic data, which isthen used by the DMA to feed into the Early Warning System. The DMA produces a monthlyEarly Warning Bulletin. At the moment one of the major thrusts of the DMA is the Community-owned Vulnerability Assessments and Capacity Analysis, which would allow communities to havecommunity-centred early warning systems. At local level District Disaster Management Teamsand Village Disaster Management Teams have been set up.

The cross-cutting nature of climate change is increasingly being recognised. Agriculture is one ofthe sectors most vulnerable to climate change in Lesotho; the MAFS has recognised this and hasalready engaged in piloting adaptation mechanisms22.

A National Climate Change Coordinating Committee was created but remains largely non-functional, meeting only sporadically; it also lacks resources, capacity and institutional buy-in toestablish the necessary framework for harmonising the management of climate change across theGovernment.

The Government is expected to soon embark in the development of a national climate changepolicy, which will require the establishment of inter-institutional coordination mechanisms. Thispolicy, and its implementation will be supported by the EU under the Global Climate ChangeAlliance (GCCA).

2.6.12 Land management and land degradation controlLand management is regulated under the Land Act 2010 (No. 8 of 2010) and the LandRegulations 2011 (Legal Notice No. 21 of 2011). The Land Act establishes that a lease orallocation of land shall be subject to certain ‘overriding interests’, and which include, inter alia: (a)water rights; (b) any rights to mines, minerals, coal, mineral oil, or gas; (c) any flora or faunanaturally occurring or present on the land.

Rural lands are allocated by the local authorities, in consultation with the chief having jurisdictionin that area, whereas in the case of urban lands, these are allocated by ‘an allocating authorityhaving jurisdiction in an urban area’ and in consultation with the chief having jurisdiction in thearea. Land may be allocated subject to an approved development plan for different uses,including e.g. industry, agriculture or grazing. The Land Regulations prohibit any “act, matter orthing” done upon the land which may cause or lead to pollution of the environment or result inthe creation of any health hazard or become a nuisance or annoyance (Art. 10).

When an application is made for the lease of agricultural land, the District Agricultural Officerand the allocating authority have to determine if the land has been abused through overgrazing

22 FAO Project on Strengthening Capacity for Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture.


or refusal or failure to combat soil erosion. The District Agricultural Officer must also confirmthat the land proposed is consistent with existing agricultural land use plans and policy, and ratifythat the land and its soil capability are economically favourable for the land use proposed.

This above process already establishes a control to keep land use in conformity with planningprocesses and avoid land-degrading practices.

In the case of land to be developed for agriculture ‘by modern farming techniques’23, the MAFSmust require the preparation of a feasibility study, including a land use plan, to be prepared bythe District Agricultural Officer in consultation with the Allocating Authority. Art. 14(2) specifiesthe contents of such land use plan, and which include: determination of animal carrying capacity(if land is used for livestock), and the identification of environmental safeguards required.

Overall land administration is under the responsibility of the Land Administration Authority(LAA), as defined in the Land Administration Authority Act 2010 (No. 9 of 2010). In the caseof agricultural lands, the Range Management and Grazing Control Regulations 1980 (LegalNotice No. 39 of 1980) and the Land Husbandry Act 1969 (No. 22 of 1969) remain applicablelegislation, although the MFLR has recognised the need to update them (MFLR, 2011).

Rangeland management

At national level the main institution dealing with land management is the Ministry of Forestryand Land Reclamation (MFLR), created in 2003 and comprising the following sections: theRange Management Division (RMD), the Department of Forestry, and the Department of Soiland Water Conservation. Other national institutions that deal with range management include theMAFS, the MNR, the MTEC and the MLGC. For example, the MAFS National Action Plan forFood Security (NAPFS) 2007-2017 addresses range land management (Sub-programme 2.3),mainly through the strengthening of institutional capacities and technical assistance.

At the local level the Community Councils have jurisdiction over land management, with theexception of the city of Maseru and certain high altitude cattle post areas, where traditionalarrangements for the management of these high mountain pastures by the 22 Principal Chiefshave been retained, as their users often come from more than one Community Council area(UNDP, nd c). Responsibilities of the Community Councils include local development planning,land administration and the allocation of land rights, and natural resources management (NRM);although local chiefs choose two of their number to sit on each Community Council, the Acttransfers all the chiefs’ NRM powers to the new Councils (UNDP, nd c).

However it has been realised that the Community Councils are not a very local form ofgovernment, as many are responsible for areas of several hundred square kilometres comprisingseveral dozen villages each, and thus cannot undertake truly local administration of naturalresources in the way chiefs and their subordinate headmen could (UNDP, nd c)

Development planning at the local level is guided by Community Action Plans produced by theCommunity Councils; Community Action Plans at the level of individual villages or groups ofvillages (i.e. below the Community Council level) is facilitated by the Unified Extension Service(UES) (UNDP, nd c).

Grazing areas are divided into three categories: the ‘A’ areas are high mountain cattleposts whichare used as summer grazing areas; the ‘B’ areas are lower mountain cattleposts used as wintergrazing areas; and the ‘C’ are mountain village areas, foothills and lowlands village winter grazingareas. Control of movement between areas (in a transhumance pattern) requires application for agrazing permit, where a site is identified before allocation by the Principal Chief; every citizen isentitled to be issued with a summer grazing permit anywhere irrespective of village or residence(UNDP, 2011). Traditional authorities also have the power to declare leboella (i.e. setting asidelands during a period of time so they may recover). However these traditional systems have beingfailing lately due to the decreasing availability of grazing lands (UNDP, 2011). The advent of

23 ‘Modern farming techniques’ are not defined, but presumably refer to commercial agriculture, using one or more ofthe following: mechanised planting and/or cropping, irrigation, use or inorganic fertilisers and other agrochemicals(authors’ interpretation).


decentralisation has also contributed to ineffective rangeland management, as the authorities oftraditional chiefs have been eroded, whilst at the same time the local authorities are not fullyfunctional, nor the new administrative arrangements fully understood by stakeholders.

The management of grazing lands has proved unable to bring stocking levels within the limits ofcarrying capacity. In some cases Range Management Areas (RMA) are managed by GrazingAssociations (GAs) or (more recently) Range Management Associations (RMAs). Modelsof RMAs are being tried under the UNDP-implemented SLM project. Upcoming legislationimplementing the (yet to be approved) Range Resources Management Policy should legallyempower these user groups.

Under the Maluti-Drakensberg Trans-frontier Project (MDTP) a methodology was developed forthe Managed Resource Area (MRA) approach. This approach is used in the ORASECOM‘Sponges Project’, as it has given good results.

Soil erosion

The Soil and Water Conservation Department (MFLR) engages in the construction of structuresfor soil and water conservation, including e.g. terracing. It also has responsibility for the mappingof soils and degraded areas, as well as for the monitoring of soil erosion; however, and with theexception of edaphological maps, these have not been produced. Soil erosion is only beingmonitored under particular project areas. Another of the current shortcomings is that, althougherosion control structures are being constructed, it is not know if these are being effective.

The MAFS is concerned with the on-farm management of soils, primarily from a nutrientsperspective, rather than a conservation perspective. Nevertheless MAFS activities are highlyimportant for soil conservation, such as the initiatives to expand Conservation Agriculturepractices, e.g. as promoted under the National Action Plan for Food Security (NAPFS).

The Forestry Department (MFLR) also deals with soil erosion control. One of the objectivesunder the National Forestry Policy 2008 is to “increase tree cover to ensure soil conservation andimprovement of water catchment areas”.

Local authorities have responsibilities on agriculture (services for the improvement of agriculture)and forestry (preservation, improvement and control), as well as on the control of grazing,environmental protection and water resources, all contributing to soil erosion control.

3 Implications of climate changeAs part of the preparation of the First National Communication to the UNFCCC, climate changescenarios were generated using six Global Circulation Models (GCMs) with simulations for theyears 2030, 2050 and 2075. Since then, updated climate change simulations performed by theLMS show temperatures increasing by about 1ºC by 2030, 1.5-2.0ºC by 2050 and 2.5-3.5ºC bythe 2080s (FAO, 2011). These projections are consistent with the modelling performed as part ofthe IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (FAO, 2011).

Predictions from GCMs suggest that there will be warmer future climatic conditions with lowerprecipitation in the spring and summer seasons, higher precipitation in winter and graduallyincreasing precipitation in autumn (UNDP, nd b). This is to result in shifting precipitation patterssuch that seasonal rains that currently occur in summer could set in later in autumn, with seriouseffects on agro-ecological conditions as growing seasons will be shortened (UNDP, nd b). Theincrease in winter precipitation suggests increased frontal systems activity characterised by heavysnowfall events and ravaging winds associated to destruction of property, livestock and loss ofhuman lives (UNDP, nd b). In general terms an increase of extreme events of floods, droughtsand snowfall is expected (UNDP, nd b).

Already changes in the onset of rains have been experienced by farmers in the mountains for thepast decade. During the 1979-1996 period Lesotho also experienced the highest incidence ofdroughts over nearly the past 200 years (UNDP, nd b). An FAO household survey identified a


consistent account of changing weather patters in the recent past based on oral accounts (thesurveys were carried out in the mountains and southern lowlands) (quoted from FAO, 2011):

the start of the rainy season is delayed, with rains arriving one or two months later than expected;

rangeland grass regrowth is delayed;

the spring drought is followed by heavy rainstorms in early summer which cause flooding;

strong winds wreak havoc to bare soils devoid of ground cover in the early spring;

unseasonal cold snaps have occurred in early summer, just after the shearing season, killing smallstock;

dry spells in January/February cause yield reductions, sometimes also linked to pest outbreaks;

late planting, often due to early season drought and late incidence of rains result in crops not reachingmaturity.

Due to is geographical location, as well as to the dominant economic activities (i.e. bulk watertransfers, subsistence agriculture, hydropower generation), Lesotho is highly vulnerable to climatechange. The 2007 National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) identified the socio-economic sectors that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and which should receive“immediate and urgent” attention: water; agriculture; forestry; rangelands; soils anddesertification; biodiversity; health; and Basotho Culture. In terms of geographical areas, thesouthern lowlands and mountains are considered under the NAPA to be the most vulnerable.

During 2009/2010 a technical study was conducted to assess climate change impacts, risks andvulnerabilities on food security and livelihoods in the southern lowlands and mountains, followedby a baseline survey of climate related risks, local vulnerabilities and perception and copingstrategies in three sub-catchments within vulnerable zones, carried out under the TechnicalCooperation Programme between FAO and the GoL. Details on the dimensions of suchvulnerabilities are found in FAO (2011).

The water sector is particularly vulnerable due to its importance for local livelihoods and thatclimate change is expected to have a severe impact on water resources, diminishing rainfallleading to the shrinkage of surface and groundwater sources (LMS, 2007; FAO, 2011). Theeffects are already being felt in catchment yields and water stress levels are expected before 2019(LMS, 2007).

The agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable as over 70% of the communities derive theirlivelihoods from agricultural activities, there are high levels of food insecurity, and climate changeis expected to impact significantly on the sector through decreased yields (LMS, 2007) – alsoassociated to the expected drying climatic conditions. In terms of social groups, smallholders areamongst the most vulnerable, as the slightest change in climate affects them. The southernlowlands and the mountains experience suboptimal spatial and erratic rainfall distribution andrecurring droughts, and rising temperatures will further reduce available soil moisture duringtimes of inadequate rainfall (FAO, 2011). As well longer dry spells, punctuated by heavy rainfallevents can have disastrous consequences for the escalation of soil erosion (FAO, 2011).

The forestry sector plays a critical role in vulnerable zones; in particular for fuel wood supply,erosion control, income generation, tourism attraction, building materials, forage and shelter(LMS, 2007). The forestry sector is already very small in Lesotho, and climate change is expectedto exacerbate its deterioration.

The rangelands sector is critical for Basotho livelihoods, as they are used for grazing, a keyeconomic activity (e.g. production of wool and mohair). Land degradation has already reachedcritical levels in Lesotho, and climate change is also contributing to this (e.g. chronic drought hasimpeded recovery of grasses and vegetation) (LMS, 2007).

Soils and desertification have also been identified as critically vulnerable, due to the existingextent of soil erosion, and which is expected to be exacerbated by the effects of climate changethrough factors such as: high temperatures, scant vegetation cover, droughts, rainstorms, strongwinds and heavy snowfall (and its subsequent melting) (LMS, 2007). The NAPA predicts that“with an estimated 9% of Lesotho’s land suitable for agriculture, climate change could result in ashrinkage of arable land to as low as 3%”.


Biodiversity is likely to be affected by climate change, as species might not be able to adapt inthe context of the rapid changes. Biodiversity plays an important role as indigenous plant speciesare used for medicinal and cultural purposes, as well as being a tourist attraction (LMS, 2007).

The Health Sector is expected to be affected especially through the possibility of onset oftropical diseases that currently do not occur in Lesotho (LMS, 2007). Finally the BasothoCulture is identified by the NAPA as being under risk, as climate change will impact onlivelihoods and new conditions will require people to resort to new ways of living, impinging onLesotho’s cultural heritage (LMS, 2007).

The NAPA identified adaptation options and prioritised them based on their contribution to thefollowing six impact areas: (1) impact on vulnerable groups and resources; (2) impact on theeconomic growth rate of the vulnerable communities; (3) impact on poverty reduction; (4) MEAsynergies; (5) employment creation; and (6) prospects for sustainability. The prioritisedadaptation options were further translated into eight adaptation projects, as follows:

1. Improve resilience of livestock production systems under extreme climatic conditions in variouslivelihood zones in Lesotho;

2. Improvement of crop production systems to reduce food insecurity in the lowlands;3. Capacity building and policy reform to integrate climate change in sectoral development plans;4. Improvement of an early warning system to reduce impacts of climate disasters and hazards;5. Securing village water supply for communities in the drought prone southern lowlands;6. Management and reclamation of degraded and eroded land in the flood prone areas;7. Conservation and rehabilitation of degraded wetlands in the mountain areas of Lesotho;8. Improvement of community food security through the promotion of food processing and

preservation technologies.

4 Integration of environment and climate change in keysectors

Under the Environment Act 2008, all line ministries have to mainstream the environment intotheir planning processes and operations; to this effect the Act provides for the creation ofEnvironmental Units (EU). Key line ministries have been integrating the environment todifferent extents.

4.1 WaterEnvironmental management is an integral part of the mandate of the Ministry of NaturalResources, particularly with regards to water quality monitoring, watershed management andwetlands management. However, coordination with other ministries that also have a mandatethat affect the water sector (directly or indirectly), particularly the MFLR and the MAFS, remainsan important challenge.

Environmental impacts of large scale infrastructure projects such as those under the LHWP, butalso dams for the supply of water to urban areas (e.g. Metolong dam) are subject to the EIAprocess and the implementation of EMPs.

Mainstreaming of climate change has not yet occurred, in spite of the sector being highlyvulnerable. This is the case not only on paper (i.e. the policy and strategy documents) but also,and more importantly, on the awareness of key staff who, to a large extent perceive this as asubject matter that falls only under the remit of the LMS. It is expected that the revised Waterand Sanitation Policy will integrate the climate change dimension.

4.2 MiningThe Mines and Minerals Act (2005) requires that mining leaseholders shall not engage in anywasteful mining or treatment practices, or conduct their operations otherwise than in accordancewith good mining practice. Section 58 of the Act requires that the holder of a mining lease shall,in accordance with good mining practice, international standards and the law, preserve the


environment, minimise and control waste or damage and prevent (and where unavoidable)promptly treat pollution and contamination of the environment (SARW, 2010).

The Mining Division of the MNR has an environmental officer, who advises developers onenvironmental issues and engages in the review of EISs and environmental briefs from themining sector.

4.3 Agriculture and forestryThe MAFS has not established an Environmental Unit. When it comes to environmentallysensitive natural resources (especially soils and rangeland) its functions are mostly concerned withthe productivity of such resources for agriculture (e.g. soil nutrients, grasslands) rather than onthe conservation of the resources, which falls primarily under the MFLR. Nevertheless, theMAFS does engage in conservation activities, such as the promotion of conservation agriculture.

Importantly, the MAFS has also taken an active interest in mainstreaming climate change, andhas engaged in piloting climate change adaptation projects in the sector. Such mainstreaming isyet to be reflected in the relevant policy documents.

The mandate of the MFLR is fully oriented to the conservation of key environmental resources,especially soils, forests and rangeland. It is also involved in the management of wetlands, albeitnot coordinating with the MNR on these activities.

4.4 EnergyThe energy sector has embarked on the promotion of renewable sources of energy, especiallymini-hydroelectric, solar and wind power. Although it does not have a policy in place (the EnergyPolicy dates from 2003 and remains a draft document), it has also taken a concern over theproblem of biomass as the main source of energy in the country. However little has been doneby the Department of Energy to address this issue.

4.5 TransportThe Transport Sector Policy (2006) was the basis for the Transport Sector Environmental Policyand Action Plan, which includes a statement of intent for, inter alia, integration of theenvironment in decision-making, promotion of ecologically sustainable transport, managementof environmental impacts from sector activities, and raising awareness of environmentalmainstreaming.

The Roads Directorate created an Environmental and Social Management Unit (ESMU)within the Department of Planning, which acts as an Environmental Unit for purposes ofcompliance with the Environment Act (2008). The ESMU is involved in the preparation of EIAsfor roads projects. Other Line Ministries are involved in the review of EIAs to ensure these arenot adversely affecting the environment (e.g. the MNR would have a say on effects on wetlands).

For roads works the Roads Directorate requests the contractor/engineering company to appointan “Environmental Compliance Officer”, who must prepare an Environmental ManagementAction Plan implementing the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that was submitted aspart of the EIS. The ESMU oversees the EIA process as well as the implementation of EMP.

Under the Environment Act the DoE has responsibility for carrying out project audits; howeverdue to lack of resources these are not carried out, and often the Roads Directorate is asked toprovide independent audits. Such ‘independent audits’ are not always carried out. In the case ofWorld Bank projects (under the ITP), the World Bank brings an environmental mission to auditthe environmental compliance of projects.

Road design follows environmental guidelines, which are part of the Design Standards for Roadsand Bridges 24 . However final designs and construction are not always fully aligned to bestpractices in terms of implementation of environmental safeguards.

24 Government of Lesotho (1998) Design Standards for Roads and Bridges – Guidelines for Environmental Control, Vol. 9,August 1998.


With regards to climate change, the NSDP makes reference to the need to climate proof roads.Updated data on precipitation and runoff (including flood return periods) are used for roaddesign, and which recently are showing shorter flood return periods, leading to more weatherresistant designs. However, designs do not take into account potential future climatic conditions.

4.6 HealthThe Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MHSW) has an Environmental Health Divisionunder the Department of Primary Health Care. This Department currently has sevenprogrammes: (1) water and sanitation; (2) water hygiene safety; (3) occupational health and safety;(4) vector control; (5) pollution control; (6) housing and buildings; and (7) port health.

The Division’s activities focus mostly on aspects such as education and awareness raising (e.g. onsanitation and hygiene issues), although they also carry out focused monitoring of some physicaland biological environmental variables (e.g. faecal pollution in water sources) in order to trackdown sources of pollution affecting health, through one person allocated per district.

Waste management is also within the remit of the Division, but focusing mainly on issues such aswaste segregation and awareness raising, not on infrastructure (e.g. for disposal and treatment),which is responsibility of the Councils. Hospital waste is currently incinerated in differenthospitals, and is recently regulated by the Hazardous (Health Care) Waste ManagementRegulations 2011.

5 Donor cooperation from an environmental perspective

5.1 European UnionCurrent EU development cooperation is guided by the Country Strategy Paper (CSP) 2008-2013and its corresponding National Indicative Programme (NIP) under the 10th EuropeanDevelopment Fund (EDF). The following focal sectors are being supported (allocations for2008-2013 indicated): Human Development (€10 million) and Infrastructure (€38.8 million in theWater & Sanitation sub-sector). In addition to that there is a contribution to General BudgetSupport (GBS) (€70.9 million), as well as support to non-focal areas (decentralisation; TechnicalCooperation Facility – TCF; governance; Non-State Actors – NSA; and trade). As well some 9th

EDF projects are still under implementation.

A review is provided below on the degree of environmental integration into the current EUcooperation. The table below provides an overview of the current programmes and projects.


Table 8 Synthesis of current EU development programmes and projects

Title EDF Sector Aid delivery modality Amount(million €)

Timeframe

Maseru Wastewater Project(MWWP) – Medium TermWorks

9th Water Project Grant under theACP-EU Water Facility

10 2007-2012

Upgrading andstrengthening of 110 km ofthe paved primary network

9th Transport Project 21.5 2011-2013

Capacity Building inEconomic Planning(CBEP), Phase II

9th Project 4.94 2008-2012

Transport Sector Policy andInstitutional ReformSupport Programme(TSPIRSP)

9th Transport Project 7.85 2007-2012

Deepening Decentralisationand Non-State ActorsSupport Programmes(DDNSP)

10th NSA Project 10 2012-2018

Strengthening the LesothoJustice Sector

10th HumanDevelopment

Project 4 2010-2016

Social Protection forOrphans and VulnerableChildren (OVC) Phase II

10th HumanDevelopment

Project 10 2011-2017

Poverty Reduction SupportBudget I (PRSB I)

10th GBS GBS 26 2009-2015

Poverty Reduction SupportBudget II (PRSB II)

10th GBS GBS 42

(+3.646complementary

support)

2011-2016

Water and Sanitation SectorPolicy Support Programme

10th Infrastructure SPSP 32 2011-2014

Technical CooperationFacility Phase III (TCF III)

10th TCF Project 2 2009-2015

Technical CooperationFacility Phase IV (TCF IV)

10th TCF Project 2 AF stage

Support Climate ChangeResponse Strategy

GCCA Facility GBS complement 4 AF stage

Maseru Wastewater Project (MWWP). This project is funded under the ACP-EU WaterFacility through a grant scheme, and is implemented by the Water and Sanitation Authority(WASA). The project has an overall positive impact on the environment, by increasing coverageof sanitation in Maseru, thus reducing pollution of water sources. Reduced water pollution in theCaledon River will also have positive transboundary effects. An EIA was carried out as part ofthe project and before construction of the wastewater infrastructure, according to national andEU requirements. Likewise an environmental officer was recruited to ensure compliance withenvironmental mitigation measures. This project shows an overall good degree of environmentalintegration.

Upgrading and strengthening of 110 km of the paved primary network. The projectpurpose is “to provide better access to the Lowland’s existing and planned centres of productionand to facilitate access of remote communities to basic social services such as schools, clinics,hospitals, commercial markets”. An EIA was carried out as part of the project’s feasibility study,which identified minor environmental issues that are to be integrated in project implementation.


Environmental integration into this project has been limited to identifying the potentialenvironmental impacts caused by the physical activities to take place. However there are widerenvironmental issues that could have been addressed but have been neglected, for example: (i)climate proofing of the roads (ensure they are resistant to foreseen climatic conditions, especiallyin relation to increased rainfall intensity); (ii) development/use of environmental standards forroads. Good road design can help reduce run-off (e.g. design and use of culverts), trap/canalisesediments (e.g. vegetative covers), and thus mitigate effects on soil erosion. It must be pointedout that the NSDP already refers to the need of climate proofing infrastructure, including roads.

In synthesis, although there were efforts to integrate the environment (especially throughcarrying out an EIA), these could have been enhanced by looking not only at impacts of theconstruction activities, but also at opportunities to enhance environmental performance andadapt to climate change.

Capacity Building in Economic Planning, Phase II (CBEP II). The project’s purpose is “toachieve and sustain a strengthened capacity for macroeconomic and financial management,sectoral planning, and economic and socio-economic development planning in GoL”. In spitethis is a seemingly environmentally non-sensitive sector, the MFDP plays a central role to ensureenvironment and climate change considerations are effectively mainstreamed across all sectors,the MFDP being the central planning government institution. This project had opportunities tostrengthen awareness of environment and climate change as key cross-cutting aspects.

There is no evidence in the documents review of an environmental screening having beingcarried out, in accordance with the EU Guidelines for Integration of Environment and ClimateChange in Development Cooperation. The use of the environmental screening questionnairecould have identified opportunities to address environmental and climate change awareness asfundamental for national and budget planning.

Deepening Decentralisation and Non-State Actors Support Programmes (DDNSP). TheNon-State Actors Sector Programme (NSA-SP) has as stated purpose “to increase the capacity ofnon state actors to engage constructively in design, implementation and monitoring of gender-sensitive and environmentally sustainable development policies at the local level”. Thedescription of the context clearly identifies that CSOs in Lesotho do not address environmentalaspects to a sufficient extent. However the stated Results do not emphasise the support toenvironmental initiatives, although the list of initiatives that could be eligible for support domake reference to environmental projects.

In the case of the Deepening Decentralisation Programme (DDP), it has as stated purpose: “topromote decentralised service delivery for social and economic growth through the developmentof transparent funding mechanisms and improving the accountability of local authorities”. TheTAPs for the DDP clarifies that the programme is not expected to have any environmentalimpacts.

Transport Sector Policy and Institutional Reform Support Programme (TSPIRSP). This isa capacity building programme aiming at supporting the Government’s proposed institutionalreforms in the transport sector, and is one of the three components of the WB/IDA fundedIntegrated Transport Project (ITP). The programme’s stated purpose is “to provide a sustainableroad sector management in place which is efficient in planning, developing, maintaining theLesotho road network and in coordinating it in the national transport system”. It addresses threecomponents: (i) rationalisation of the road sector; (ii) sustainable road financing and improvedcapacity of road sector management; and (iii) reformulation of transport sub-sector policies.

Environmental management is identified as one of the programme activities, and will includesupport to establish an Environmental and Social Management Unit within the MPWT to ensureconformity with environmental standards during formulation of transport projects andenforcement of environmental guidelines during their implementation. The programmes logicalframework also establishes as a sub-result that all road projects will go through environmentalscreening and be subject to an EIA, and a corresponding indicator is included.


Strengthening the Lesotho Justice System. This programme “seeks to enhance a professional,accessible and impartial Lesotho Justice Sector, which will ensure fair, timely and efficientdelivery of justice and effectively combat corruption”. In spite of the links that environmentalgovernance has with the justice sector, there is no reference in the Technical and AdministrativeProvisions (TAPs) on the environmental dimension of implications of the programme. Noenvironmental screening was carried out, where these links may have been identified; this doesnot necessarily mean that the programme should have incorporated a component onenvironmental justice, but would have at least recognised the benefits that an improved justicesystem and reduced corruption will have to strengthen environmental governance.

Social Protection for Orphans and Vulnerable Children, Phase II (OVC II). The statedproject purpose is “to address forms of child vulnerability through adequate provision of qualitychild and gender sensitive protection measures”. The TAPs recognise that there will be noadverse environmental impacts from programme implementation.

Poverty Reduction Support Budget (PRSP) I and II. In spite of the important environmentalissues in the country, and which are directly associated to the situation of poverty (e.g. landdegradation), the PRSP’s indicators and conditions of disbursement do not include anyenvironmental indicator or condition. The selection of GBS performance indicators is astatement of perceived priorities, where the environment does not feature.

Water and Sanitation SPSP. The programme provides support to the implementation of thewater and sanitation policy and is implemented through sector budget support (SBS).Performance indicators (triggers for disbursement of variable tranches) are related to rural andurban water supply and rural and urban sanitation. However, the Government has not been ableto carry out a proper monitoring of the agreed indicators, and more input/output or proxyindicators are being proposed so as not to stall the disbursement of tranches. No evidence isprovided of an environmental screening for SEA in accordance with the EU Guidelines;however, as part of the preparation of this CEP an SEA screening was carried out for a potentialsecond support to the water sector, indicating areas of attention that should be addressed duringSPSP identification and formulation.

Technical Cooperation Facility (TCF) Phases III and IV. This project is oriented toenhance the capacities of the GoL to manage the EDF programmes. Although not explicitlymentioned, capacity building in the administration of EDF should include reference to the EU’sdevelopment cooperation environmental integration policy and guidelines. There is no evidenceof environmental screening for the project.

Support to the Climate Change Response Strategy. This GCCA facility project will beintegrated into the GBS programme, with the addition of certain climate change specificconditions of disbursement and variable tranche indicators.

In general terms there is a good degree of environmental integration into the formulation of theprogrammes and projects. However there is little evidence for use of the environmentalscreening methodology (for EIA and SEA) defined in the EU Guidelines, as no completedenvironmental screening questionnaires are attached to any of the TAPs. The fact thatenvironmentally sensitive projects have required an EIA shows evidence that an environmentalscreening has nevertheless being followed in the case of projects, be it the EU’s or theGovernment’s own EIA screening process.

The use of the environmental screening questionnaire would have allowed identifying furtheropportunities to enhance environmental performance, such as the climate change adaptationdimension in roads design; the recognition of benefits of an enhanced justice system forenvironmental governance and environmental justice; or the need to provide capacity building onthe EU’s environmental integration tools and methods under the TCF. In the case of some non-environmentally-sensitive programmes reference is sometimes made to the fact that theprogramme will not have environmental impacts (e.g. OVC II), whereas the analysis should alsodwell into opportunities as to how the programme could enhance environmental performance.


In the case of the EIA system, similarly an impact-focus is usually taken, oriented at identifyingand mitigating adverse environmental impacts of project designs, rather than also seekingopportunities to enhance environmental performance.

In the case of the GBS, it is unfortunate that no single environmental condition or performanceindicator is included, showing that the environmental dimension, in spite of its very close links tothe situation of poverty in the country, does not feature in the Government’s priorities.

According to the EU Guidelines for environmental integration, SEA screening has to be carriedout for sector support, which was not evidenced in the SPSP for water and sanitation (although ithas been carried out, as part of this CEP preparation, for a potential follow-up sector support).Likewise an SEA should have been carried out for the national development strategy as acondition for GBS25.

5.2 Other donorsOnly a few donors are active in Lesotho, and not all of them have country offices. The GoL isyet to produce an Aid Policy, and currently there is no formal division of labour amongst donors,leading in some cases to overlaps, but also to the existence of neglected areas. The matrix belowshows the sub-sectors where different donors are active in Lesotho; the size of the dot shows theamounts committed, giving an idea of the size of the support [ < €2 million; €2 million < <10€ million; > €10 million]

25 According to the EU Guidelines on Integration of Environment and Climate Change in Development Cooperation.The application of SEA for GBS programmes remains one of the weakest areas in terms of environmental integrationon EU development cooperation, as evidenced by the reviews of environmental integration in EU funded projects andprogrammes carried out for the past three years.


Table 9 Synthesis of donor funds in environment and climate change

Donor

En

viro

nm

enta

lg

ove

rnan

ce

Wat

er&

San

itat

ion

Bio

div

ersi

ty&

Pro

tect

edA

reas

Fo

rest

ry

Lan

dD

egra

dat

ion

Ind

ust

rial

po

llu

tio

nco

ntr

ol

Was

te&

Haz

ard

ou

sW

aste

Man

agem

ent

Cli

mat

eC

han

ge

adap

tati

on

Cli

mat

eC

han

ge

mit

igat

ion

European Union

Irish Aid

World Bank

AfDB

MCC

UNDP

FAO

WFP

Japan

GIZ

IFAD

USAID

UNEP

A table providing an overview of the main donor-funded projects in Lesotho dealing withenvironment and climate change is presented in Appendix 4.

The main donors with presence in Lesotho are: the EU, Irish Aid, World Bank, MCC and UNagencies (in the context of environment and climate change, these are mainly FAO and UNDP).Other donor agencies support some projects on environment and climate change, but have nooffices in Lesotho; such is the case of USAID, JICA and AfDB.

Most of the money for environment and climate change is going into the water and sanitationsub-sector. More specifically, the water sector takes up a large percentage of the aid (especiallyfrom MCC) for the construction of the Metolong dam. The EU and Irish Aid are the maindonors involved in sanitation and rural water supply, especially through sector budget support,although Irish Aid will soon withdraw from the water sector.

Land degradation is targeted directly by the UNDP-implemented (GEF-funded) SustainableLand Management (SLM) Project. This project involves the development and testing of modelsand techniques for SLM that overcome current institutional and governance barriers. Otherprojects, especially on climate change adaptation also address land degradation directly orindirectly, e.g. by promoting conservation agriculture and (to a lesser extent) agroforestry.

The other subsectors that have received wide attention are climate change adaptation andmitigation. In the case of climate change adaptation, much interest has been shown in pilotingconservation agriculture and small-scale irrigation (mainly through FAO and USAID) andworking through the MAFS; also support is going into disaster management and DRR (mainlyUNDP and Japan), working with the DMA and the LMS on early warning systems.


Support to climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector has been given through small pilotprojects, with a limited scope. For example, the FAO project on climate change adaptation in theagriculture sector was piloted in three drought-prone localities with very positive results, but theup-scaling of the project in a second phase has not yet attracted interest for funding fromdonors. Other climate change adaptation projects in the agriculture sector (e.g. the USAIDMICA or LIP II projects) also operate in a small-scale pilot basis. Climate change policy-makingand mainstreaming has been targeted through the (completed) AAP, and more recently willreceive support from the EU through its GCCA Facility.

In the case of climate change mitigation the expansion of renewable energies has receivedinterest, mainly from the AfDB and UNDP. There are some on-going projects, amongst whichthe most ambitious is the GEF-funded (UNDP-implemented) Lesotho Renewable Energy-BasedRural Electrification project (LREBRE), which is seeking funding for its second phase. TheLREBRE project involves mainly the use of solar power in rural communities. Wind power isalso to be developed, being pioneered in Lesotho through the Lesotho Highlands Wind PowerProject (with private investment).

The other environmental sub-sectors are receiving a much lower degree of attention by thedonor community, in some cases in spite of their importance to tackle poverty in Lesotho.

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 ConclusionsLesotho is a Least Developed Country that depends heavily on the state of its environment in allmajor respects. More than 70% of the population engage in subsistence rain-fed agriculture,often complemented by sales of wool and mohair, especially in the mountains. The main sourceof foreign exchange for the country is related to the extraction and sale of its natural resources,primarily water (transferred to RSA through the LHWP) and diamond mining. In the pastremittances from Basotho working in the South African mines constituted an important sourceof income, but these mines have been closing; mineworkers in RSA have dropped from about120,000 in the 1980s to less than 50,000 today (GoL, 2012a).

Land degradation

In spite of what has been said above, the environmental resources that underpin Lesotho’seconomy are scarce, seriously degraded and/or highly vulnerable to climate change. Foodinsecurity has not improved in the past couple of decades and remains one of the mainchallenges, with decreasing agricultural yields to which the changing climate has beencontributing. Arable land is very limited and decreasing (probably less than 9% of total land areaat the moment) and its soils are increasingly being washed away and degraded. Some farmersresort to erosion control measures such as terracing and diversion furrows; however thesetechniques are not widely applied, often not maintained, and in some cases even destroyed toincrease arable land.

Rangelands are being over-stocked and over-grazed, not allowing them to regenerate; these arebeing colonised by Invasive Alien Species, and overstocking is also exacerbating soil erosion.Over-harvesting of fuel wood adds to land degradation, in a context where the majority of therural population depend on wood as energy sources for cooking and heating, in a country whereforest cover is incredibly small, and where there is no tradition of sustainable management offorest resources. Other factors – biophysical, regulatory, institutional – also contribute to landdegradation, such as bushfires, erosion of traditional authorities vis-à-vis recently established andyet ineffective local authorities, an out-dated regulatory system, and fragmented and un-coordinated institutional structures.

Wetlands are essential for the capture and buffering of water sources in Lesotho. Howeverwetlands are also increasingly under pressure; siltation from land degradation affects their


functions, some have been reclaimed for agricultural land, cattle graze on them, and roads oftentraverse them. Inappropriate range management is directly affecting wetland functions.

There are little or no updated and trustworthy quantitative data on degradation; however theextent of land degradation is obvious to the eye (e.g. extensive gully and sheet erosion in theform of dongas and bare rock) and is felt by the rural population in the decreasing agriculturalyields and scarcity of healthy rangelands.

Land degradation has multiple causes; also multiple effects that spread over a wide array ofsectors and sub-sectors. The most immediate effects have been referred to above: decreasingagricultural yields and diminishing grazing lands, which both impinge directly on food securityfor the majority of the population. Degraded land has an adverse effect on local biodiversity;traditional medicinal plants become scarcer, impacting health of the local population and alsotraditional Basotho culture; potential for bio-trade is reduced.

Eroded soil washes to the rivers, adding their nutrient load and thus diminishing oxygen levels,affecting river ecosystems. But sediments also end up in the Katse, Mohale and Muela dams,decreasing their life-time, and thus potentially affecting the revenues from the transfers of waterto RSA and reducing the hydropower generation potential. Sediment load will eventually lead toincreasing levels of eutrophication, which will affect the potential for tourism and aquaculture, aswell as further reduce hydropower generation potential. Sediment loads on dams and eventualeutrophication will also affect the Government’s efforts to provide improved water sources tothe population, by decreasing the life-span of dams and increasing water treatment costs. Landdegradation is thus on its way to interfere with the basis of Lesotho’s main source of foreignexchange, as well as with the country’s efforts to reduce energy dependency and improve accessto water.

Climate change is already contributing to land degradation and increased food insecurity, asexperienced by farmers across the country. Late onset of rains is shortening the growing seasonand increased recurrence of drought has already led to crop failures. Three main variables definevulnerability to climate change, and Lesotho scores low in all three of them: exposure, sensitivityand adaptive capacity. Climate change is likely to, inter alia, reduce the regenerative capacity ofvegetation through drier weather (causing further stress on rangelands), more intenseprecipitation events (increasing run-off and risk of floods), and lead to diminishing waterresources.

Figure 2 below shows the basic interactions around land degradation. The boxes in red showhigher level impacts; the boxes in orange highlight the contribution of climate change; the boxesin pink show key medium-level impacts; whilst the boxes in green show areas that will, later inthis report, be proposed for focus of EU support.

The GoL has recognised the importance of land degradation; different line ministries and levelsof government have responsibilities in relation to land degradation: MNR, MFLR, MAFS,MTEC, MLGC, District Councils, Community Councils, traditional Chiefs. Various pieces oflegislation and policies refer to the problem, e.g. the Environment Act 2008, the Water Act 2008,policies for water and sanitation, environment, food security, forestry, agriculture. Howeverefforts to address the problem have been shy, insufficient, ineffective and largely uncoordinated.Sound policies and strategies have been prepared (e.g. Forestry Policy and action plan, IWRMstrategy, Food Security Policy and strategy) or are being prepared (e.g. Range ManagementPolicy, Soil and Water Conservation Policy), but effective implementation remains a challenge.Lack of comprehensive and effective M&E systems in the key sectors does not contribute toeffective planning, as well as lack of comprehensive research into soil erosion processes anddynamics.

The NSDP again emphasises the problem of land degradation, but the GoL’s key focus is onmacroeconomic figures, promoting job creation through the further development of the LHWPand expansion of the mining industry. Land degradation, albeit its direct relationship to thesituation of poverty in the country, does not figure prominently. In the words of the NSDP:“Employment creation represents the best way of achieving progress towards Vision 2020 goals. Therefore, the


Plan’s main indicator for success will be the number of jobs added to the economy. The Government has set theobjective of adding at least 50,000 sustainable jobs to the economy by the end of the Plan period….This will be anindicator of success in terms of growth, poverty and inequality…”

According to the draft PSIP, for the 2012-2015 period, the MFLR (the main ministry dealingwith land degradation) is expected to receive about 2,5% of the budget allocated to ministries;the MAFS about 1.4%, and the MTEC about 0.16% (of which only part of it goes toenvironment). In contrast MNR is to receive approximately 33% of the budget, mainly for largeinfrastructure works (i.e. Metolong dam). However, the single largest environmental expenditureis for water catchment, which in principle is to have a budget of 100 million Maloti inFY2012/13. This offers an opportunity to better address land degradation under an integratedwater catchment management approach.

With some exceptions, environment is not a key area of attention for the donor community.Most of the environment-related support is to the provision of water supply and sanitationservices (e.g. the EU’s water SBS, Irish Aid, World Bank support to the construction of theMetolong dam). There is however, support from the MCC to wetlands protection and smalldonor-funded projects addressing issues such as conservation agriculture and climate changeadaptation in the agriculture sector. In relation to land degradation the UNDP (GEF-funded)Sustainable Land Management (SLM) project is the one that most directly addresses landdegradation; however, the project is coming to an end and, as has been the case with the FAO-implemented climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector project, funds have not yet beenidentified for up-scaling.

Water management

The provision of water supply and sanitation services has received wider support from the donorcommunity as explained above. However, the wider water sector is fundamental not only withregards to the country’s macroeconomic figures (i.e. LHWP) but also due to its direct link to landdegradation (wetlands, integrated water catchment management) and to its potential to reducefood insecurity and contribute to adaptation to climate change (e.g. small-scale irrigation, waterharvesting).

The broader water sector is fragmented between different ministries, departments andparastatals. The MNR addresses issues of water policy and planning, water quality monitoring,wetlands management and, through the DRWS and WASCO, provision of water supply andsanitation services, where local authorities should play an increasingly important role. The LHDAdeals with the LHWP and bulk water transfers to RSA. Water for agriculture (irrigation) is mainlyaddressed under the MAFS; small water-capture structures by the MFLR, which are alsoaddressing wetlands protection. Land management aspects fundamental to a healthy watersystem are under the MFLR and, to a lesser extent, the MAFS.

The integrated planning and management dimension that is fundamental to water management isconsidered at a policy and strategy level (e.g. the IWRM Strategy, watershed managementplanning), but is yet to become a reality; insufficient and ineffective inter-institutionalcoordination mechanisms remain one of the main limiting factors.

The lack of a functional M&E system in the sector has also been an obstacle to good planning;there is no current agreement on baseline data, and basic indicators are proving difficult tomeasure, as evidenced by the difficulties to apply the performance indicators agreed with the EUfor the water SBS.

The M&E system requires attention. However, the donor community should consider the watersector in its broader context, especially as it relates to fundamental challenges for povertyeradication, such as is the case with land degradation.

Integrated Water Catchment Management

Issues of land degradation and water management are best addressed through an integrated watercatchment management approach, and which would normally include aspects such as rangelandmanagement, soil erosion control, forestry, water resources management, water quality control,


etc. The integrated water catchment management approach is foreseen under the Water andSanitation Policy (2007), but is also referred to in the National Environmental Policy (1998) aswell as in the draft versions of the National Soil and Water Conservation Policy and the NationalLand Use Policy.

An integrated water catchment management approach has the beauty of capturing – in acoordinated manner – the main challenges identified above under the banners of landdegradation and water management. Such a systemic approach comes at a cost of complexity,which is translated into significant challenges.

As any integrated approach, water catchment management necessitates a clear overarching policyand effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms. This is a challenge under the currentLesotho context, where inter-institutional coordination has been very weak and ineffective, andwhere the different components that must be covered by a water catchment managementapproach are fragmented across several government institutions, in some cases overlapping.

Figure 3 below shows the main sub-sectors that pertain to integrated water catchmentmanagement, as well as the main institutions with competence in those areas, and thegovernment policies that address them. The diagram presented is but a simplified version thatshows the complexity involved, and thus the challenges faced in attempting effectivecoordination and alignment of policies and strategies. This complexity is carefully considered inproposing a donor support to water catchment management. For example, at a very basic levelclarification must be obtained about whether an integrated catchment management approach(foreseen under the Water & Sanitation Policy and promoted by the MNR) is the same as theintegrated land and water conservation approach (promoted by the MFLR).


Environmental governance in Lesotho is very weak. Lesotho Vision 2020 does refer to a “wellmanaged environment” as an integral element of the vision statement. “Lesotho shall be renowned forits environmental management” (Vision 2020, Section 2.3.6) points the way forward; the NSDPrescues environmental management as one of the strategic areas and recognises that “soundenvironmental policies, adaptation to climate change and physical planning are necessary for sustainable long-termeconomic growth while preserving our country for future generations”. It further acknowledges that “there iscompelling evidence that the measures that are currently being taken…are not adequate to reverse environmentaldegradation”.

The Environment Act 2001 provided for the creation of the semi-independent LesothoEnvironment Authority (LEA). Nevertheless it was decided that no funds were available toestablish the LEA, and the former National Environment Secretariat (NES) was converted intothe Department of Environment (DoE) within the MTEC.

Several indicators shed light on the inherent weaknesses of the DoE and thus its constraints tofulfil its mandate of advocate and defender of environmental protection in the country. Someexamples should suffice: (i) for a start the Ministry’s mission statement is all about tourismdevelopment26 - on a generous interpretation, the mission is about environmental protection so itmay facilitate tourism development; (ii) the approximate budget allocated to the whole MTECfor the 2012-2014 period represents only 0.16% of the total budget; the draft list of “on-goingprojects” identified under the draft PSIP for the MTEC does not include a single environmentalproject; (iii) most of the provisions made in the Environment Act 2008 have not beenimplemented; (iv) the MTEC’s Strategic Plan 2005-2008 prescribed without having implementedmost of the actions foreseen for the Department of Environment.

Furthermore the DoE is understaffed and does not have resources to carry out some of its basicfunctions; for example, no resources are available for the preparation of the new State of theEnvironment Report (which is long over-due); there are no resources to implement the NBSAP;

26 “The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture is committed to promote environmentally and culturally sustainable development,making Lesotho the number one tourism destination in the region through the provision of high quality service and creation of enablingenvironment for the private sector driven and community based tourism development”.


and the Department’s capacities are insufficient to carry out the necessary inspection missionsand environmental audits.

In spite Lesotho cannot be considered an industrial country, there is presence of environmentallysensitive industry, such as the garment and the mining industries. Large-scale infrastructureprojects are also environmentally sensitive, such as the construction of large dams under theLHWP. We must recall that the NSDP is placing emphasis on the expansion of the miningindustry and LHWP as growth accelerators under the low-growth scenario; under the moderate-growth scenario these also include manufacturing, agriculture (commercial) and tourism.

The existing gap between the development of environmentally-sensitive activities and thecapacities of the environmental governance system to guarantee the implementation ofregulations and safeguards and ensure enforcement, is widening. Strengthening of environmentalgovernance is a necessity.

For environmental governance to be effective many fronts need to be tackled, such as:institutional arrangements (e.g. DoE vs semi-autonomous agency); inter-institutional coordinationmechanisms; resources (human, financial, technological); technical capacities; enforcementpowers; and M&E, including establishment of an environmental baseline. The DoE haselaborated a project proposal to strengthen the implementation of the Environment Act 2008(DoE, 2011), and is seeking support from UNDP.


Figure 2 Basic cause-effect land degradation-related interactions


Figure 3 Main components of an integrated water catchment approach, including government institutions and relevant policies


6.2 RecommendationsThe analysis of the environmental challenges in Lesotho are translated into practicalrecommendations as to how the EU can best contribute to address them under the programmingfor the 11th EDF. Recommendations take into account several factors such as the institutionaland regulatory context, the government’s priorities as expressed in their policies and strategies,and the current and foreseen donor support.

Especially important, careful consideration is given to the objectives of EU developmentcooperation, as stated in the European Consensus on Development, the principles of the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness, and the draft EC Programming Guidelines.

The 2005 European Consensus on Development states that: “the primary and overarching objectiveof EU development cooperation is the eradication of poverty in the context of sustainable development, includingpursuit of the Millennium Development Goals”. Thus the recommendations made below take intoaccount the poverty focus of the development cooperation. They also take into accountprinciples of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (ownership, alignment andharmonisation), which is done mainly by seeking to support the implementation of thegovernment’s own policies and strategies, seeking opportunities for coordination with otherdonors and ensuring that the government remains in the driving seat. In cases where the authorsconsider the government’s policies unsuitable as frameworks to tackle key environmentalconcerns, policy dialogue is proposed as a complementary option for the EU Delegation totake.

Recommendations are made for the selection of sectors of cooperation; environmentalintegration in non-environment sectors of cooperation; and environmental integration into theDelegation’s own procedures.

6.2.1 Sectors and areas of support under 11th EDFTwo narrowly defined sector of cooperation are proposed for consideration for the EU tosupport: land degradation and environmental governance. As well recommendations aremade for the integration of environmental consideration into a possible support to the energysector. Finally the following section makes specific recommendations for better environmentalintegration in the water sector support, which also captures some elements associated to landdegradation.

Land degradation

Land degradation is probably the main environmental concern in Lesotho, and it is associated tothe perpetuation of poverty and to increasing food insecurity. It also has adverse effects on theefficiency of the LHWP, hydropower generation and loss of biodiversity. It receives attentionfrom donors, but not to the extent required; many projects show positive and promising results(e.g. from the SLM project), but these remain localised and funds for up-scaling remainuncertain.

In terms of alignment, a hypothetical support to land degradation would be contributing to anumber of GoL policy objectives, as shown below.


Table 10 Key national policy objectives associated to land degradation

Policy Objectives

NSDP Reduce vulnerability and manage risk – improve household food security

Climate change proof the agriculture sector

Reduce land degradation and protect water sources

Strengthen range management institutions and range management capacity

Improve land use, administration and management (in relation to reducedencroachment on agricultural land)

National ForestryPolicy

Combating land degradation through increased tree forest cover

NationalEnvironmentalPolicy

Achieve sustainable development through integrated programmes ofemployment generation and natural resources rehabilitation and management inrural and urban areas. Including strategy to: rehabilitate degraded resources to increasetheir productivity and improve the livelihoods of the poor for basic human needs.

Promote land conservation, sustainable use and development through tenurereform, planning, legislation and incentives

Improve land use and natural resources management and sustained increasedagricultural production and rural economic development and diversification

Promotion of environmentally sound management of the rangeland andmountain ecosystems and resources for sustainable and environmentallyfriendly development

Identify and address the driving forces behind desertification and mitigate theeffects of desertification and drought through sectorally coordinated policiesand programmes

Food SecurityPolicy

Promotion of agriculture to boost food production, income and employment

Sub-objective: prevent soil erosion through appropriate cultivation practices

Sub-objective: maintain the fertility and long-term food production levels byslowing and eventually stopping the process of land degradation. Improveshort-term food security by …and rehabilitation of dongas.

National RangeResources Policy(draft)

Raise public awareness and promote community and wider stakeholders’ activeparticipation in rangeland resources management

Develop and implement efficient and effective strategies to avert land andvegetation degradation

Improve and maintain productivity of rangeland resources at optimal level so asto promote ecosystems balance

Rehabilitate and improve the quality of rangeland so as to enhance productivityof livestock and wildlife habitat

Conserve and increase the availability of native plant species for economic,social and cultural utilisation

Protect water resources and improve the water quality and yield

Enhance the aesthetic beauty of the landscape and increase opportunities forsustainable recreation and ecotourism

Improve income opportunities and quality of life of the rural communities

Promote disaster (wild fires, drought, etc.) risk reduction, gender equity, as wellas HIV and AIDS mainstreaming in range resources management

National Land UsePolicy (draft)

Ensure that our descendants enjoy land resources and ecosystems that are atleast as environmentally and economically productive as they are today

National Soil andWater ConservationPolicy (zero-draft)

Rehabilitation of degraded lands

Develop appropriate conservation techniques

Maintain soil fertility and long-term food production levels by slowing andeventually reducing the process of land degradation

In addition to the above policy objectives, land degradation is also subject of attention of anumber of sectoral strategies, including: Agricultural Sector Strategy (2003); the National ActionPlan for Food Security (2007-2017); National Forestry Programme (2008-2018); the IWRMStrategy; and the National Action Programme in the context of the UNCCD.


The draft programming guidelines state that the EU should support those sectors that build thefoundations for growth, and in particular those with a strong multiplier effect, “notablyagriculture and energy”. Addressing land degradation is a de facto support to agriculture.

Ownership may prove a challenge in a support to land degradation, as it is an area thatnecessarily requires inter-institutional coordination, which is currently weak in Lesotho. Asupport to land degradation would thus require to first focus on the building of ownershipand the creation of effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms. The AidCoordination Unit within the Ministry of Development Planning could be the entry point for thecoordination of programming related to land degradation; this programme should take aspriorities the clarification of institutional mandates and policy frameworks for service deliveryand the relevant department would need to be capacitated to carry out this mandate. If theMinistry of Development Planning is given convening power, then its accountability to the restof the land group needs to be re-emphasised.

Sector support should be the preferred aid delivery modality. However due to the multi-sectoralnature of land degradation, it is not clear which should be the government strategy to besupported through the SPSP (e.g. the National Range Resources Management Policy, theNational Soil and Water Conservation Policy). An alignment of policies with key focus onland degradation needs to be achieved, and responsibilities for its implementation clearlydefined under the coordination mechanisms. Such an alignment of policies and setting up of acoordination mechanism for the sub-sector may profit from a long-term Technical Assistance,complemented with ownership- and capacity-building activities, such as on-the-job trainings,post-graduate trainings, study tours and twinning arrangements. Working closely with localauthorities and traditional authorities is essential in this sector.

Technical Assistance could be used to assess technical capacity of land degradationofficers and develop an associated training plan and a retention plan. TA could also providecapacity building for extension officers and help create extension posts at a high enough level toattract skilled graduates and ensure candidate skills are aligned to position.

Lack of a baseline on land degradation is a key inhibiting factor for effective land management,and thus the generation of a baseline should be priority for evidence-based planning, an area thatUNDP is exploring. Technical Assistance could also be used to generate the baseline and themonitoring system.

It is highly recommended not to focus all resources on Sector Budget Support (SBS), but rathercomplement with TA as described above.

Choice of performance indicators is key for a successful sector support. Under the NSDPproposed M&E system, the only directly relevant indicator is “rehabilitated areas affected by soilerosion”; however no methodology has been defined on how this indicator should be measured.The establishment of a baseline and the measuring of the indicator can be very problematic, asexperienced in Rwanda, where soil erosion is also a national problem, and where measurement ofa similar indicator has proved unsatisfactory and is currently under revision. A credible andagreed methodology for the measurement of this indicator has to be agreed, probablycomplemented by indirect measures of soil erosion (e.g. suspended solids and sediment load instrategically located surface water sampling points).

In addition to soil erosion, land degradation must also be measured with regards to rangelandmanagement and soil conservation agricultural practices. Possible aspects that could be reflectedin indicators include:

stocking rates;

number of livestock farmers under functional Range Management Associations;

ha under conservation agriculture;

number of approved land use plans;

rate of encroachment on arable land;

expenditure on research on soil erosion;

land degradation monitoring system established.


UNDP – under its SLM project - is exploring options to measure rangeland degradation forevidence based planning. Results of this consultancy should be taken into account whenconsidering indicators.

Donor coordination will be essential in order to ensure complementarity and follow-up of otheractivities, notably the UNDP SLM project, the FAO climate change adaptation in agricultureproject, the WB small-scale agriculture project, as well as others (e.g. under USAID) that havehad a narrower scope.

Table 11 below synthesises the rationale of the support, taking the format recommended in thedraft programming guidelines.

Table 11 Synthesis of rational for the support to land degradation

Objectives of the NationalDevelopment Strategy (orequivalent) as identified in thenational development plan orequivalent documents

Create high, shared, and employment generating growth

Reverse environmental degradation and adapt to climate change

Other donors' coverage in thefollowing sectors

UNDP: sustainable land management

FAO: agriculture

MCC: wetlands management

EU Agenda for Change relevantpriorities

Sustainable agriculture and energy

Expected results of actionsforeseen in national developmentplan and for EU support

Agriculture and rural economy

Reduce vulnerability and manage risk

Improve household food security

Climate change proof the agricultural sector

Reduce land degradation and protect water sources

Strengthen range management institutions and range carryingcapacity

Improve land use, administration and management

Could lead to different options forthe issues to be addressed withinthe sector chosen

Range management governance. Especially up-scaling of UNDPSLM project experience and institutionalisation of experiences (e.g.including policy framework, establishment of institutional set-up,inter-institutional coordination mechanisms, M&E system for rangeland management and soil erosion control).


Strong environmental governance is needed in a country whose economy is almost fullydependent on its natural resources (mainly water, rangelands and soils), where these naturalresources are under increasing stress, and where the country’s growth strategy promotes anincrease in industrial activity and large infrastructure works. Environmental governance is also anarea that has been largely neglected by the donor community, and where the EU could have asignificant impact.

In terms of alignment, a hypothetical support to environmental governance would becontributing to GoL policy objectives and strategies, as shown below.


Table 12 Key national policy objectives associated to environmental governance

Policy Objectives

NSDP Reverse environmental degradation and adapt to climate change (Strategic GoalNo. 5)

Improve environment and climate change governanceNationalEnvironmentalPolicy

Protect and conserve the environment with a view to achieving sustainabledevelopment for Lesotho (Policy Goal) (various policy objective under it)

One of the challenges for the support to environmental governance is that the Department ofthe Environment is kept as a weak institution, showing a deficit of environmental awarenessat the highest political levels, where environmental protection is to a certain extent still seen asa potential obstacle for the onset of business. For this reason Sector Budget Support is notrecommended. Low environmental awareness of the wider population is also an inhibitingfactor. Rather, a support to environmental governance could be addressed taking into accountthe following:

Awareness raising at the political level on the links between environmental degradation,poverty and economic growth. Technical Assistance could be used to prepare a detailedeconomic valuation of natural resources and environmental degradation in Lesotho,which would translate environmental degradation into monetary terms (e.g. what is the cost,in Maloti, of soil erosion, considering decreased agricultural productivity, decreased life-spanof dams for bulk water supply and electricity production, etc.) Such a study could form thebasis for awareness raising. However, the lack of baseline data may be an important obstaclefor the preparation of such an economic valuation, and a scoping study may be required todetermine the methodology to be used and basic baseline data to be generated.Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) can also be promoted as a tool to betterintegrate the environment into policy-making and planning processes at the national andsector levels. The donor community (especially the EU, World Bank and GIZ out of thosepresent in Lesotho) has wide experience in the use of SEA. As well, the Environment Act2008 considers SEA as a tool for environmental integration, although its use has not beenregulated nor implemented. A pilot SEA in a key sector planning process (e.g. energy) couldbe very useful to pilot the tool and also to highlight the environmental issues associated tokey sectors.

Awareness raising of the general population on the key environmental issues in thecountry and options to address them. Support to general awareness raising could include:o Training and capacity building of NGOs to strengthen their advocacy role;o Awareness raising of journalists on the environmental issues in the country, and capacity

building for providing media coverage of environmental issues and on using the mass media asa tool for environmental sensitisation;

o Input into strengthening the environmental component of the national education curricula.

Strengthening of environmental integration in key ministries. Although the DoE hadtrained key persons to build the Environmental Units (EUs) in the line ministries, most ofthese EUs are not functional or were never formally established. A support toenvironmental governance should also directly tackle environment as a cross-cutting issue inkey sectors (including energy, water, land use, transport and tourism); this could includeaspects such as:o Awareness raising and training on the links between the environment and the different sectors

(targeted training);o Training on use of environmental integration tools, such as EIA and SEA;o Assistance and training on measurement of key environmental indicators associated to the

sector.

Policy dialogue on the need to enhance environmental governance, and discussinginstitutional rearrangements (e.g. creation of an environmental semi-autonomous executiveagency).

Review of the Environment Act 2008, as foreseen under the NSDP, in order to optimiseand enhance its performance. Careful attention should be given to ensure that this NSDP-


foreseen activity is not focused on further diluting the EIA system to facilitate businessdevelopment. For example, one aspect that could be enhanced in the Act would be defininga provision so developers have an obligation to monitor their polluting emissions on aregular basis, and report to the DoE; this would allow the DoE to target the inspections theycarry out, place the onus of monitoring on polluters, and provide a legal basis for action incase polluters submit false data.

Support to the effective implementation of the Environment Act, based on aprioritisation of activities. Such support could include a component of sector budgetsupport, with clearly identified indicators that measure effective implementation of the Act.Such indicators could include, e.g.o Number of effluent licenses and pollution licenses issued by the DoE;o Number of inspections carried out by the DoE;o Establishment of the Environmental Tribunal;o Number of effluent monitoring reports submitted by industry to the DoE (in case such a

provision is established);o Approval of effluent quality standards;o Compliance of industry with approved effluent quality standards.

Table 13 below synthesises the rationale of the support, taking the format recommended in thedraft programming guidelines.

Table 13 Synthesis of rational for the support to environmental governance

Objectives of the NationalDevelopment Strategy (orequivalent) as identified in thenational development plan orequivalent documents

Reverse environmental degradation and adapt to climate change(overall Strategic Goal 5)

Other donors' coverage in thefollowing sectors

None

EU Agenda for Change relevantpriorities

Human rights, democracy and other key elements of goodgovernance

Expected results of actionsforeseen in national developmentplan and for EU support

Improve environment and climate change governance

Could lead to different options forthe issues to be addressed withinthe sector chosen

Review and implementation of the Environment Act 2008, includingpossible revision of legislative framework, institutional restructuring,institutional strengthening, awareness-raising (multiple levels,including key ministries, NGOs, media, judiciary), on-the-job andpost-graduate training.

Environmental integration in the energy sector

Energy is being considered by the EU Delegation as a possible sector of cooperation. Apart fromthe obvious merits of increasing the level of electrification for the Basotho population, from anenvironmental point of view there are three main opportunities: (1) enhanced supply of biomassenergy resources; (2) reduced dependency on biomass resources; and (3) reduced greenhouse gasemissions through the use of renewable sources of energy.

The draft Energy Policy (2003) seeks to expand the role of renewable energies by making themmore affordable. At the moment solar energy (mainly photovoltaic and solar-thermal) has beenexpanded, as well as some mini-hydroelectric schemes and some bio-digesters been constructed.Initiatives are on the way for the development of wind energy.

From an environmental point of view it should be recalled that the main source of energy for theBasotho population is biomass, mainly wood. The collection of fuel wood from unsustainablesources is associated to increased deforestation and increased land degradation. Increasedelectrification is likely to be used primarily for lighting and running of electric appliances (e.g.


TVs, refrigerators, but also water pumps and medical equipment), but may not be a significantenergy substitute for heating and cooking, the main consumers of biomass. Reductions inbiomass consumption can be further obtained by promoting increased energy efficiency (e.g. inhousing insulation, energy-efficient stoves).

From an environmental point of view, a possible support to the energy sector should ensure thatit builds into its objectives the reduced reliance on wood as a source of household energyand (especially) the increase of sustainably managed sources of fuel wood (with appropriatespecies that do not contribute to land degradation). It thus implies that the support to the energysector looks at aspects such as: reforestation; afforestation; and forestry management plans.These should be reflected in appropriate indicators, such as:

% of households that use sustainably managed woodlots to secure wood for energy purposes;

% of energy needs (cooking, heating, lighting) satisfied by wood.

From a climate change mitigation point of view, the support to the energy sector should seek tomaximise opportunities for low-carbon sources of energy in line with a “green growth” approachto development, as already promoted by the GoL.

A Renewable Energy Policy needs to be aligned with the National Forestry Policy (2008), whichpromotes planting of trees and shrubs to curb the energy deficit. The MFLR (ForestryDepartment) will have to be engaged in a support to the energy sector.

One of the major obstacles for the support to the energy sector is that the government does nothave an approved Energy Policy (the 2003 policy remains a draft), and the Renewable EnergyPolicy has not yet been prepared.

In terms of alignment, a hypothetical support to the energy sector would be contributing to anumber of GoL policy objectives and strategies, as shown below.

Table 14 Key national policy objectives associated to forestry component of the energy sector

Policy Objectives

NSDP Increase energy conservation, security and distribution efficiency of alternativesources (which includes: promote forest/tree planting and regeneration ofother important biofuel species)


Improve land-use and natural resources management and sustained increasedagricultural production and rural economic development and diversification(including a strategy on promoting renewable sources of energy to facilitateregeneration of the resource base and minimisation of loss of vegetation cover)

Develop and promote through awareness building, incentives and marketefficient, and environmentally friendly energy sources and energy savingtechnologies (including strategy to accelerate community-based afforestationprogrammes countrywide for energy sources enhancement and discourage thecombustion of crop residues and animal dung)


Promote the planting of appropriate exotic (indigenous) trees and shrubs inorder to curb biomass energy deficit. Encourage and give priority to theestablishment of individual and communal woodlots for fuel-wood production.

Participate in the promotion of energy efficient technology in rural households,such as the use of energy saving stoves, biogas, and solar energy in order toconserve the few remaining forest resources of the country.

Energy Policy(draft)

Improve the availability of biomass resources

Promote the sustainable use of biomass in the country

Make available quantitative data on the consumption patterns and depletion ofbiomass

Encourage the switch to alternative fuels to reduce the pressure on biomass

Under the EU Guidelines for Integration of Environment and Climate Change in Development Cooperation,energy is considered as an environmentally-sensitive sector, and it is thus recommended to


prepare a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the policy/strategy whoseimplementation should be supported.

The EU should carry out an SEA Screening as part of the energy sector SPSP identification. Incase it is decided that an SEA needs to be carried out, the results of the screening process shouldbe used to help define the scope of the SEA, so it becomes a focused process. In this case:

The EU should build ownership of the SEA process by promoting the SEA within the GoL(especially the Department of Energy). To that end, a workshop that includes a short trainingcomponent on SEA and its use is recommended, leading to the preparation of aspects to beaddressed in such an SEA. There must be a commitment to take into consideration the SEA recommendationsand integrate them in the policy-making and implementation process.

The SEA should provide recommendations both to the EU and to the GoL. It should providerecommendations to the GoL on how to better integrate the environment in the energy policy; aswell it should provide recommendations to the EU on how the environment could be betterintegrated into the formulation of the energy sector SPSP.

Ideally the SEA should be carried out as part of the policy-making process, in order for it to moreeffectively influence the way the policy document takes into account the environment. However thereis a possibility that the policy-making process it already advanced by the time an SEA is carried out;in this case the SEA can still influence the policy-implementation process, as long as there is politicalwill to address environmental concerns.

The ToR for the SEA should be based on the format suggested in the EU guidelines; however itmust be adapted to ensure that it addresses not only the potential environmental impacts of policyimplementation, but also to identify the environmental challenges in the sector in order to seekopportunities for the energy policy to better address them. As well it should be as focused aspossible, addressing the potential areas of concern as identified through the screening process.Possible aspects to focus on may include:o Capacities within the Department of Energy to manage EIA processes for energy-sector

projects (e.g. evaluation and follow-up of Environmental Management Plans);o Adequacy of the environmental regulatory framework to address potential environmental

impacts associated to the introduction of new technologies (e.g. wind energy);o Degree to which the energy policy promotes opportunities to reduce pressures on the

environment associated to the energy sector (e.g. pressure on land due to harvesting of fuelwood);

o Capacities to implement environmental safeguards and policy provisions that act on reducingpressures on the environment (i.e. is it realistic that such provisions will get implemented, giventhe existing institutional capacities and resources? Is their implementation conditional to donorsupport? Is there political will?);

o Degree to which the energy policy realistically integrates the expected effects of climate changein the sector (e.g. water availability for hydroelectric power, effects on availability of biomass assource of energy);

o Degree to which the energy policy promotes the use of low-carbon technologies;

The SEA would also need to take into account other policies and strategies that are relevant to theenergy sector, especially the National Forestry Policy and its Action Plan.

6.2.2 Water sector supportThe EU is currently supporting the water sector through a Sector Budget Support programme,with a focus on water provision and sanitation. However monitoring has proved difficult toimplement, due to the lack of a credible baseline and to the absence of an effective M&E systemin the sector. A study to review the M&E system in the water was recently prepared (Vad andKiwango, 2011) which provides recommendations. The EU should ensure and appropriate M&Esystem, in line with the recommendations made in that report, is developed and implemented forcontinuation of the current support.

The EU is also likely to agree a new sector support to the water sector under the 11th EDF. Forthis new SPSP it is highly recommended that the water sector is addressed in its broader sense,and not limited to the provision of water supply and sanitation services. The EU support shouldfocus on the implementation of an integrated water catchment management approach, whichis foreseen in the Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy.


Water management can only be effective if it takes into account the whole catchment. Thisincludes measures to guarantee water quantity and quality, such as protection of sources of water(e.g. wetlands), buffering of run-off (e.g. vegetation cover), and water quality (e.g. effluentcontrol). It also includes measures to satisfy demand, such as water for irrigation, water forindustrial use, and water for household consumption. “The water sector has in the past focused onproviding water for domestic purposes only and put little emphasis on the provision of water for productive purposesin rural area” (Vad and Kiwango, 2011). Integrated water catchment management is becomingincreasingly important in the context of climate change, as water supply is like to decrease (e.g.through increased drying of the climate) and because water-dependent productive sectors such asrain-fed subsistence agriculture are especially vulnerable and are going to be affected by erraticrainfall patterns, putting further stress on food security.

Aspects to address in approaching integrated water catchment management identified by Vadand Kiwango (2011) include:

1. “Focus on local level planning and implementation. The Department of Environment has valuableexperience from the support to ‘Managed Resource Committees’ (MRCs) in selected catchment areas inMokhotlong as part of the Maluti-Drakensberg Project. The MRCs cover a sub-catchment area and consistof the involved CCs [Community Councils], chiefs, grazing associations and other stakeholders in thecatchment and prepare and implement catchment management plans. The MRCs are supported by thedistrict level departments for forestry, soil conservation, range management and agriculture;

2. Combined planning and budgeting at national level between the involved line ministries of natural resources,forestry and land reclamation, agriculture, environment and local government. Achieving this would requireaction and support from the highest level of Government to operationalise coordination mechanisms and e.g.get active participation from these line ministries in the water sector coordination mechanisms.”

Inter-institutional coordination is fundamental for a successful integrated water catchmentmanagement approach; for this to occur it is essential to build ownership of the process as wellas the necessary awareness and capacities. A watershed management approach requires theinvolvement of the DWA, the MAFS (e.g. in terms of irrigation and agricultural practices), theMFLR (e.g. in terms of forest management, soil and water conservation and rangelandmanagement), the DoE (pollution control), Community Councils and traditional authorities.Alignment of sector policies is also fundamental, more particularly the Water and SanitationPolicy (and the upcoming Long-term Water and Sanitation Strategy), the up-coming Soil andWater Conservation Policy (being prepared by the MFLR), the Range Resources ManagementPolicy (currently in draft), and the Irrigation Policy (draft).

The EU could support activities such as:

Long-term technical assistance, helping in setting up an inter-institutional coordinationmechanism, implementing it, and developing capacities (training);

Study tours to countries in the region where an integrated watershed management approach hasproved successful;

Post-graduate and/or on-the-job training on integrated watershed management;

Alignment of relevant sector policies and/or strategies.

Due to the importance of land degradation as an inhibiting factor for development andits direct link to water catchment management, if the EUD decides not to support landdegradation as a sector of cooperation, it is recommended that it integrates key landdegradation variables in its support to water catchment management. Such aspects couldinclude, e.g.:

up-scaling of range management systems;

establishment of a baseline of land degradation/soil erosion;

establishment of a land degradation monitoring system.

Performance indicators could reflect in general terms progress in the setting up andimplementation of an integrated watershed management approach, for example: number ofwater catchment management plans developed and approved, or establishment of awater catchment management coordinating body. Land-degradation aspects variables could


also be integrated, in the case there is no support to land degradation from the EU or otherdonors, addressing the aspects mentioned above (range management systems, completion ofbaseline, monitoring system). However it is also recommended that monitoring focuses on moreconcrete priority aspects of water management; in particular we recommend promoting small-scale irrigation.

In a country where the majority of the population depends on subsistence rain-fed agricultureand where climate change is expected to especially affect the agriculture sector, irrigation isrightly recognised under the NAPA as one of the key adaptation measures. Moreover, largedams, such as Metolong and those under the LHWP offer a guaranteed and constant water flowthroughout the year, which could be used to provide gravity irrigation. However, a possiblesupport to small-scale irrigation should ensure that feasibility studies are carried outprior to any developments, ensuring that irrigation will not exacerbate soil erosion, whichcan be particularly problematic in duplex soils. Indicators such as the following could beused:

Area (ha) under irrigated agriculture;

% of households practicing irrigation agriculture.

In terms of alignment, a support to water catchment management (and small-scale irrigation inparticular) would be contributing to a number of GoL policy objectives, as shown below.


Table 15 Key national policy objectives associated to water catchment management and small-scaleirrigation

Policy Objectives

NSDP Develop water harvesting infrastructure and increase irrigation capacity

Climate change proof the agriculture sector

Expand water and sanitation distribution services to industries, commercialcentres, households and other institutions

Expand water harvesting infrastructure

Reduce land degradation and protect water sourcesWater andSanitation Policy

Enhance the conservation and protection of the country’s water resources andpromote its sustainable management

Promote integrated water resources management with a view to reducing thenegative impacts of human activities and natural processes on sensitiveecosystems

Encourage the implementation of catchment management principles andpractices as the basis for managing the country’s water resources


Promote sustainable development and implementation of measures to helpmitigate climate change, control and reduce atmospheric pollution andgreenhouse gas emissions

Develop integrated and coordinated, effective and efficient approaches toconservation and use of water resources, and promote its conservation andavailability in sufficient quantity and quality on sustainable basis


Increase tree cover to ensure soil conservation and improvement of watercatchment management areas

Promote sustainable water management and conservation practicesNational IrrigationPolicy (draft)

Contribute to poverty alleviation by targeting smallholder farmers for irrigationdevelopment to enhance farm income and by supplementing the recommendedstrategies for rain-fed agriculture

Improve agriculture production and a measure of food security throughirrigation by supplementing rain-fed agricultural output during the wet season,and ensuring some production during the dry season and droughts

Extend cropping opportunities and provide a wider variety of crops in bothwet and dry seasons to improve nutritional security

National Soil andWater ConservationPolicy (zero-draft)

Adopt integrated watershed management approach

An SEA Screening was prepared in accordance with the EC guidelines for environmentalintegration (Appendix 6), concluding that an SEA for the LWSP (context of an SPSP in the watersector) is not necessary, but highlighting areas of attention.

A distinction is made between the Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy (2007) (subject of thewater sector SPSP) and the wider ‘policy’ to the water sector, which includes the LHWP. Whilstthe former is largely not environmentally sensitive and has mainly potential positiveenvironmental impacts, the latter is highly sensitive in environmental terms. Thus the EUD isencouraged to advocate, through its policy dialogue, for the completion of a cumulativeimpacts assessment for the whole of the LHWP and other dams (e.g. Metolong, Muela), alsoexplicitly taking into account the expected effects of climate change and increased climatevariability and the potential socio-economic impacts (e.g. on water availability for the Basothopopulation, including to satisfy requirements for climate change adaptation, such as small-scaleirrigation).


6.2.3 Environmental integration in the EU DelegationAlthough no critical shortcomings were identified, environmental integration in the EUD’s ownpractices could benefit from some improvements that deserve explicit attention:

Undertake EIA and SEA screenings as part of the identification of all project (EIAscreening) and sector (SEA screening) support in accordance with the Guidelines forenvironmental integration. Attach the screening results to the respective IdentificationFiches.

Promote and prepare SEAs, were necessary (as determined by the SEA screening), incoordination with the GoL and other donors (e.g. an SEA of the NSDP would have beenuseful in the context of the GBS).

In analysing the environment as a cross-cutting issue as part of the identification andformulation phases (and as reflected in the corresponding IFs and AFs), do not centreattention only on potential adverse impacts on the environment (which are largely absentfor the case on environmentally non-sensitive sectors), but also look for opportunities forthe proposed support project/programme to help address environmental concerns andenhance environmental performance (opportunities can be identified in most sectors). TheEC Guidelines for environmental integration provide many prompts for the identificationof such opportunities.


Appendix 1 Environmental maps

Figure 4 Agro-ecological zones of Lesotho


Figure 5 Average annual temperature


Figure 6 Rainfall distribution


Figure 7 Lesotho’s river system


Figure 8 Road infrastructure


Figure 9 Main cities and urban centres


Appendix 2 References

Anchor Environmental Consultants (2007) Socio-Economic Assessment of the Potential Impact of aProposed Rehabilitation and Conservation Strategy for Wetlands in the Highlands of Lesotho, Final Report.Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho.

Bawden, MG and Carroll, DM (1968) The Land Resources of Lesotho. Tolworth: Land ResourcesDivision, Directorate of Overseas Surveys, Land Resources Study 3.

Bureau of Statistics (2010) Statistical Yearbook 2010. Ministry of Finance and DevelopmentPlanning.

Cauley, PM (1986) Benchmark soils of Lesotho: their classification, interpretation, use and management. LandConservation and Range Development Project, USAID. Maseru: Ministry of Agriculture.

CEDAMA - Committee on Environmental Data Management (2006) Annual Meeting Report, May2006.

CEDAMA (2007) Annual Report, May 2007.

CEDAMA (2008) Annual General Meeting 15-16 May, 2008.

Centre for Environmental Management (nd) Integrated Baseline Assessment of the WetlandCatchments/Watersheds: Motete, Sani and Letseng La Letsie Areas. Submitted to Millennium ChallengeAccount – Lesotho.

Chakela, QK and J Cantor (1987) History of Soil Conservation and Water Conservation Policy inLesotho. In P. Blaike (Ed) (1987) History of Soil Conservation in the SADCC Region. Soil and WaterConservation and Land Utilization Programme. Report No. 8. Maseru.

Cowan, GI and Van Riet, W (1998) A Directory of South African Wetlands. Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Department of Environment (2009a) Lesotho Fourth National Report on Implementation of Convention onBiological Diversity. UNDP/GEF.

Department of Environment (2009b) Environmental Education Strategy, Towards 2014 – A StrategicPlan for Education for Sustainable Development in Lesotho (2009). Department of Environment.

Department of Environment (2011) Strategic Plan to Implement the Lesotho Environment Act 2008.

Elimam, B (2010) Enhancing national and local capacity in disaster risk reduction in Lesotho, Annual ProgressReport, December 2010.

Envirotech Services (2006) The baseline assessment towards the development of an Integrated Solid WasteManagement System (ISWMS) for the City. Report summary sheet.

European Commission (2007) Kingdom of Lesotho – European Community Country Strategy Paper andNational Indicative Programme for the period 2008-2012.

European Commission (2009) Guidelines on the Integration of Environment and Climate Change inDevelopment Cooperation. Tools and Methods Series, Guidelines Nº4.

European Union (2011) African Transboundary River Basin Support Programme. Case of the Orange-SenquRiver in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa. SADC-EU Final Project Report, 1 March 2009-30 June 2011.

Department of Environment (2009) Lesotho Fourth National Report on Implementation of Convention onBiological Diversity, UNDP GEF.

FAO (2011) Strengthening capacity for climate change adaptation in agriculture: experience and lessons fromLesotho. Environment and Natural Resources Management Series No. 18.

GEF (2011) Request for CEO Endorsement/Approval – Improvement of Early Warning Systemto Reduce Impacts of Climate Change and Capacity Building to Integrate Climate Change into


Development Plans.

Government of Lesotho (nd a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report for the Base Year 2000,UNEP/GEF Climate Change Study in Lesotho, Project Number GFL – 2328-2724-4947. Draftreport.

Government of Lesotho (nd b) Lesotho Vision 2020.

Government of Lesotho (1998) Proposed Water Quality Guidelines for Lesotho – Domestic (drinking)Water Guidelines – Second Draft. Document adopted after discussions at a National Workshop toprepare National Guidelines for the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho.

Government of Lesotho (2010) Lesotho National Action Plan for Capacity Development in Disaster RiskReduction 2007-2015. July 2010 revision.

Government of Lesotho (2011a) Post Disaster Needs Assessment – Heavy rains 2010/11.

Government of Lesotho (2011b) National Land Use Policy (draft).

Government of Lesotho (2012a) National Strategic Development Plan 2012/13 – 2016/17, Growth andDevelopment Strategic Framework.

Government of Lesotho (2012b) Public Sector Investment Programme. Draft (March, 2012).

Government of Lesotho (2012c) Ten Year Review of Vision 2020.

Government of Lesotho (2012d) National Strategic Development Plan 2012/13-2016/17 Monitoring andEvaluation (M&E) Framework.

Government of Lesotho (2012e) Lesotho MDG Report, 2012 update.

Haas, L.J.M; Mazzei, L and O’Leary, D.T. (2010) Lesotho Highlands Water Project, communicationspractices for governance and sustainability improvement. World Bank Working Paper No. 200. World Bank:Washington D.C.

Hughes et al (1992) A Directory of Africa Wetlands. Section 5.3: Lesotho. Retrieved from:http://ramsar.wetlands.org/

Institute of Water Sanitation and Development (2006) Experiences with Micro Agricultural WaterManagement Technologies: Lesotho. Report submitted to the International Water Management Institute(IWMI) Southern Africa Sub-regional Office, Pretoria, RSA.

International Finance Corporation (2011) Brief on PPP options in the power sector in Lesotho, Final.

IUCN (2007) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species of Lesotho. IUCN retrieved 22 May 2007.

Kingdom of Lesotho (nd) National Biosafety Policy for Lesotho “Striving to Achieve Safe Application ofBiotechnology”.

Kingdom of Lesotho (1989) National Environmental Action Plan.

Kingdom of Lesotho (1994) National Action Plan to Implement Agenda 21

Kingdom of Lesotho (1998) National Environmental Policy for Lesotho.

Kingdom of Lesotho (2005) National Implementation Plan – Enabling activities to facilitate early action onthe implementation of the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

Kingdom of Lesotho (2010) National Drought Contingency Plan. January 2010 update.

Lenka Thamae, M and Pottinger, L (Eds) (2006) On the Wrong Side of Development, lessons learned fromthe Lesotho Highlands Water Project. Transformation Resource Centre, Maseru.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority - LHDA (2004) Macroeconomic Impact Study of Phase IB.Prepared by Conningharth Economists.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority – LHDA (2008) Strategic Plan 2008/09 – 2012/13.

Lesotho Meteorological Services (nd) Adaptation to Climate Change Technology Needs in Lesotho, Energy


and Land Use Change and Forestry.

Lesotho Meteorological Services (2001) Climate Change in Lesotho, a handbook for practitioners.

Mafatle, T; Khalema, K, Makotoko, M and Tsasanyane, T (2004) Enabling Activities to FacilitateEarly Action on the Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Final Report,Identification and Quantification of Dioxins and Furans.

Makhoalibe, S (1997) Country Study (Lesotho) Integrated Water Resources Management Issues and Options.Prepared for UNECA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Makhoalibe, S (2005) African Water Development Report; National Report Lesotho. Prepared forUNECA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Marake, M.V. (2010) The Challenges for Agricultural Development & Food Security in Lesotho: canagriculture make better use of natural resource management? Paper presented at the National Forum onAgriculture & Food Security, Maseru.

Marake, MV; G Shone; JE Carlsson; Y Khatiwada and M Segerros (1998) The Production ThroughConservation Programme 1981-1996. Department of Conservation, Forestry and Land Use Planning,Government of Lesotho, Maseru.

Matzner, D (nd) Lesotho Highlands Power Project, Integration of Wind Power and Pump Storage to providepeaking and mid-merit power supply. Powerpoint presentation by Breeze Power (Pty) Ltd.

Metsi Consultants (2000) Final Report: Summary of Main Findings: instream flow requirements for rivercourses downstream of LHWP dams. Report No. LHDA 648-F-02. Lesotho Highlands Water Project,LHDA, Maseru.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2002) The National Irrigation Policy of Lesotho, draft.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2003) Agricultural Sector Strategy.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2005) Lesotho Food Security Policy and Strategic Guidelines.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2006) National Action Plan for Food Security (NAPFS),Ten Year Plan 2007-2017.

Ministry of Environment, Gender and Youth Affairs (2001) Capacity Building in EnvironmentalManagement, The Proposed National Data Access and Exchange Guidelines and Evaluation of Training Needs,Hardware and Software Requirements.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (nd) SLM Project Area Mapping.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (2008a) National Forestry Policy.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (2008b) Lesotho National Forestry Programme 2008-2018.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (2010) Forestry Poverty Alleviation Programme.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (2011) National Range Resources Policy (draft).

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (2012a) National Soil and Water Conservation Policy. Zero-draft.

Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation (2012b) Review and Assessment of Integrated WatershedManagement Project 2007-2012.

Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (2005) National Health Care Waste Management Plan.

Ministry of Natural Resources (nd a) Lesotho Drought Management Strategy.

Ministry of Natural Resources (nd b) Lesotho IWRM Strategy.

Ministry of Natural Resources (nd c) Lesotho Water Demand Management Strategy.

Ministry of Natural Resources (nd d) Lesotho’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) onClimate Change. Lesotho Meteorological Services.


Ministry of Natural Resources (2000) First National Communication to the Conference of the Parties to theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – National Report on Climate Change.

Ministry of Natural Resources (2007) Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy.

Ministry of Natural Resources (2010) Interim Strategy for the Water and Sanitation Sector.

Ministry of Natural Resources, Meteorological Services Department (2012) Integration of ClimateChange Issues into Sectoral Development Plans. Second draft (7/03/2012).

Ministry of Natural Resources Water Commission (2007) Roadmap to completing integrated waterresources management and water efficiency planning in Lesotho.

Ministry of Tourism and Culture (nd) Assessment of Environmental Information Systems in Lesotho,prepared for The National Environment Secretariat (NES) for the implementation of the AfricanEnvironment Network by B. Mothuntsane and T Mohapi.

Ministry of Tourism Environment and Culture (2005) MTEC Strategic Plan 2005-2008.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture (2006) National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA)Project, Project Terminal Report. Prepared by L. Motanya.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture (2007) National Capacity Development Action Plan toImplement the Rio Convention and related Multilateral Environmental Agreements in Lesotho.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture (2009) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment.National Environment Secretariat.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture (2010) Capacity Assessment for the Sound Managementof Chemicals and National SAICM implementation. Department of Environment.

Mokotjomela, T.M. (2008) Habitat modification and population size of ice rats (Otomys sloggetti robertsi)contribute to soil erosion in Lesotho. URI: Http://hdl.handle.net/16539/4867

Moran, G; Wolfson, T; Tangney, J; Sello, N; Tsoele, M; and Lerotholi, P (2009) Chieftainship andLocal Governance in Lesotho. Local Governance and Non-state Actors Support Programme (LGNSP)Report No. 5, European Union.

National Environment Secretariat (2006) The baseline assessment towards the development of an IntegratedSolid Waste Management System (ISWMS) for the City.

National Environment Secretariat (1999a) State of the Environment in Lesotho 1997. Edited by Prof QK Chakela.

National Environment Secretariat (1999b) Lesotho National Action Programme in Natural ResourceManagement, Combating Desertification and Mitigating the Effects of Drought.

National Environment Secretariat (2000) Biological Diversity in Lesotho, a country study. UNDP/GEF.

National Environment Secretariat (2002a) Lesotho Second State of the Environment Report. Prepared byC Mokuku; T Lepono; M Mokhothu; T Khasipe and T Mokuku. (Executive Summary).

National Environment Secretariat (2002b) Transformation of the national Environment Secretariat into theLesotho Environment Authority. Draft Report, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, Maseru.

National Environment Secretariat (2005) Invasive alien species status report. Ministry of Tourism,Environment and Culture.

National Environment Secretariat (2007) Invasive alien species distribution report. Ministry of Tourism,Environment and Culture.

Nokana, MME (2009) The Determinants of Internal Migration: Case Study of Three Districts in Lesotho.Research paper presented in partial fulfilment for obtaining the degree of Masters of Arts inDevelopment Studies, International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Onchere, J (1996) Soil erosion data and concepts and soil monitoring system for NES, the Kingdom of Lesotho.Maseru: National Environmental Secretariat.


ORASECOM (2008a) Orange-Senqu River Basin, Preliminary Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, adoptedby ORASECOM in April 2008. UNDP/GEF:

ORASECOM (2008b) Protection of the Orange-Senqu Water Sources ‘Sponges’ Project Lesotho. ProjectProposal.

ORASECOM (2008c) Protection of the Orange-Senqu Water Sources ‘Sponges’ Project Lesotho. Main finalreport. Prepared by Tsoelopele Consultants and Contractors (Pty) Ltd, DHI and PEM consult a/s.

ORASECOM (2010) The State of the Orange-Senqu River System, setting the baseline water resources qualityin 2010. A report on ORASECOM’s First Joint Basin Survey JBS-1, October and November2010.

Quibell, G et. Al. (2011) Transforming legal access to water to redress social inequity andeconomic inefficiency. Chapter 5 in Schreiner B. and Hassan R. (2011) (Eds) Transforming WaterManagement in South Africa. Designing and Implementing a New Policy Framework. Springer, South Africa.

Rooyani, E (1985) A note on soil properties influencing piping at the contact zone between albicand argillic horizons of certain duplex soils (aqualfs) in Lesotho, southern Africa. Soil Science,139(6): 517-22.

Schmitz, G and Rooyani, F (1987) Lesotho: geology, geomorphology and soils. National University ofLesotho: Roma.

Sekolis, B.T. (2002) The Climate Change, National Conference on World Commission on Dams Report.Maseru.

Showers, K (2005) Imperial Gullies, soil erosion and conservation in Lesotho. Ohio University Press:Athens, Ohio.

Southern Africa Resource Watch – SARW (2010) Rethinking the management of mineral resources inLesotho. Report of the National Conference on Extractive Industries, Maseru Sun Hotel 5-6 July2010, Maseru, Lesotho.

TAMS (1996) Water Resources Management: Policy and Strategies Final Report. Department of WaterAffairs, Maseru, Lesotho.

Tsehlo, T (2011) Assessment of energy for rural development in Lesotho. Department of Energy.

Tsoelopele Consultants and Contractors (Pty) Ltd and PEM consult a/s (2010a) Strengtheningcapacity in strategic financial planning for the water supply and sanitation sector in Lesotho, Baseline, Affordability& Development Options Report.

Tsoelopele Consultants and Contractors (Pty) Ltd and PEM consult a/s (2010b) Strengtheningcapacity in strategic financial planning for the water supply and sanitation sector in Lesotho, Capacity Developmentand Integration Report.

Tsoelopele Consultants and Contractors (Pty) Ltd and PEM consult a/s (2010c) Strengtheningcapacity in strategic financial planning for the water supply and sanitation sector in Lesotho, Final Report.

Tsoelopele Consultants and Contractors (Pty) Ltd and PEM consult a/s (2010d) Strengtheningcapacity in strategic financial planning for the water supply and sanitation sector in Lesotho, Strategic FinancialPlanning Report.

Umvoto Africa (Pty) Ltd (2006) Capacity Needs Assessment of Disaster Risk Management in the Kingdomof Lesotho, Task 2.3 Report.

UNDP (nd a, unpublished) Review of donor-funded natural resource management projects, 1980-2010:conclusions & lessons learned.

UNDP (nd b) Africa Adaptation Programme – Lesotho Project (project fiche).

UNDP (nd c) UNDP Project Document PIMS 2044: Capacity Building and KnowledgeManagement for Sustainable Land Management in Lesotho.

UNEP (nd d) Project Document - Improvement of Early Warning System to Reduce Impacts of


Climate Change and Capacity Building to Integrate Climate Change into Development Plans.

UNDP (2007) Enhancing National and Local Capacity in Disaster Risk Reduction in Lesotho,March 2008 to February 2009 (project fiche).

UNDP (2011) Sustainable Land Management Project, Draft SLM Model Document.

UNDP/GEF (nd) Renewable Energy-based rural electrification in Lesotho – UNDP/GEFproject proposal.

UNIDO (2010) Lesotho Wool and Mohair Sector Study. Ministry of Trade, Industry, Cooperatives andMarketing.

United Nations (2012) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012. UN: New York.

USAID (2007) 118/119 Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment for Lesotho.

Vad, J and Kiwango, IM (2011) Consultancy for the Rapid Assessment of the Water and Sanitation Sectorand Development of Proposal for Support and Strengthening. Prepared by Consortium led by ParticipGmbH for the European Commission.

WHO (2004) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 3rd edition, WHO: Geneva.

WHO (2005) Water Safety Plans: managing drinking water quality from catchment to consumer. WHO:Geneva.

WWF (2009) Interbasin water transfers and water scarcity in a changing world – a solution or a pipedream?

Lesotho Highlands Water Project documents

Various documents obtainable from the project’s web site (www.lhwp.org.ls), including the annualreports up to 2006.


Appendix 3 Key environment-related legislation

National Legislation

The Constitution of Lesotho (Article 36)

Environment Act 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2008)

Nature Conservation Bill (2011)

Draft Hazardous Waste Management Report and Legislation (Bill and Regulations)

Hazardous (Health Care) Waste Management Regulations 2011 (11 Nov. 2011)

Forestry Act (1998)

National Parks Act 1975 (Act No. 11 of 1975)

Water Act 2008 (No. 15 of 2008)

Lesotho Electricity and Water Authority Act 2008

Lesotho Water and Sewerage Authority Order 1991 (Order No. 29 of 1991)

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Order, 1986 (Order No 23 of 1986)

Land Act 2010 (Act No. 8 of 2010)

Land Administration Authority Act 2010 (Act No. 9 of 2010)

Land Regulations, 2011 (Legal Notice No. 21 of 2011)

Mines and Minerals Act 2005 (Act No. 4 of 2005) [Part VIII: Environmental Obligations]

Local Government Act (1996)

Local Government Regulations (2005)

Tourism Act 2002 (Act No. 4 of 2002) [Part VI: Tourism and Environment]

The Roads Act, 1969 (Act No. 24 of 1969)

The Land Husbandry Act 1969 (Act No. 22 of 1969)

The Weeds Eradication Act 1969 (Act No 18 of 1969)

Historical Monuments, Relics, Fauna and Flora Act No. 41 (1967)

The Litemo Control Order 1070 (Order No. 23 of 1970)

The Precious Stones Order 1970 (Order No. 24 of 1970)

Proclamation of a Wild Life Sanctuary – Government Notice No. 34 of 1970

Importation and Exportation of Livestock and Livestock Products – Proclamation 57(1952)

Protection of Fresh Water Fish – Proclamation 45 of 1951

Game Preservation - Proclamation 33 (1951)

Sale of Game – Proclamation 5 of 1939

Locust Destruction – Proclamation 3 of 1925

Wild Birds – Proclamation 43 of 1914

International Treaties and Conventions

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora


(CITES)

Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention)

Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC) Region (1995) (SADC Protocol)

Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC) Region (2000) (Revised SADC Protocol)

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)


Appendix 4: Donor projects/programmes on environment and climate change

Title DescriptionMain sub-

sectorGov’t

agencyDonors

Donor funds(approx.)

Time-frame

Up-coming programmes/projects

Development ofClimate ChangePolicy and Strategy

Respond to possible CC threats and opportunities by buildingcapacity to formulate and implement effective proactiveadaptation responses. Build capacity for better technicalintegration of CC into development planning, promoting tools andmethodologies for analysis of vulnerability and development ofinnovative adaptation solutions.

CC policy MNR EU 0.385 M€ 2013-2015

Lesotho RenewableEnergy-Based RuralElectrificationPhase II

LREBRE project builds on an earlier pilot phase in the districts ofMokhotlong, Thaba Tseka and Qacha’s Nek. The objective of theproject is to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions by encouragingthe use of renewable energy technology as substitute for fossilfuels in the rural areas that are away from the national electricitygrid. The project will install solar home systems for ruralcommunities and provide grants for income generating activities.

CC mitigation MNR,Dep. ofEnergy

Current programmes/projects

Africa AdaptationProgramme forClimate Change(AAP)

Key outputs: (1) leadership capacities and institutionalframeworks to manage CC risks and opportunities in an integratedmanner, including decentralised approach at local and nationallevels strengthened; (2) climate-resilient policies and measures inenergy and health sectors implemented and community-basedadaptation action promoted; (3) financing options to meet nationaladaptation costs, incl. PPP and private participation, expanded atlocal and national levels; (4) knowledge on adjusting national andsub-national development processes to incorporate CC risks isincreased and opportunities generated are shared across all levels.

CC adaptation LMS UNDP(funded by

Gov’t ofJapan)

$2,881,000USD

2010-2011



sectorGov’t

agencyDonors


Time-frame

Sustainable LandManagement (SLM)

Main outputs: (1) proven, strengthened, participatory, replicablemodels and techniques that overcome institutional andgovernance barriers to SLM, strengthen country partnershipsand integrate SLM into country programmes; (2) adequate localand national capacity in place and is adapting and scaling upproven SLM models and techniques; (3) Lesotho adoptsprogrammatic approach to SLM.

Landdegradation

MFLR UNDP (GEFfunded)

1,5 M€ 2010-2014

Capacity buildingand knowledgemanagement forSLM in Lesotho

Build a proven, replicable SLM to make a direct contribution tothe PRS, to its Food Security Policy and to the fulfilment of itsNational Action Programme in response to the UNCCD.

Landdegradation

MFLR UNDPCARE (GEF-funded; GTZco-financed)

$1,724,500USD (GEF)$4,670,000USD (GTZ)

2008-2012

Adaptation of small-scale agricultureproduction (ASAP)

The project objective is to increase the resilience of small-scaleagriculture to CC impacts by promoting climate-proofedinvestments for agriculture-based development, as well as byenhancing the resilience of agricultural productivity underincreased climate variability.

Climate Changeadaptation

MAFSLMS

IFAD $4,330,000USD (GEF)

$13,000,000(co-

financement)

2011-

Support to theImplementation ofthe NationalBiosafetyFramework

The project objective is to develop a workable and transparentNational Biosafety Framework in line with its nationaldevelopment priorities and the obligations to the CartagenaProtocol on Biosafety.

Biosafety MTEC UNDP (GEFfunded)

$884,806USD (GEF)$166,888USD (co-

financing)

2009-

Water SectorProject

Improving the water supply for industrial and domestic needs.Domestic users in selected urban and rural areas will benefitfrom water system upgrades and expansion. The project will alsoenhance rural livelihoods through improved watershedmanagement. Specifically the project will (i) construct a bulkwater conveyance system (Metolong Dam and Water SupplyProgramme); (ii) extend and rehabilitate urban and peri-urbanwater network; (iii) improve sanitation services for about 25,000households through construction of VIP and water systems; and(iv) restore degraded wetlands at 3 areas in highland pasturesand preparation of an SEA to support development of a nationalwatershed management and wetlands conservation plan.

Water andSanitation

MNR MCC $164,027,999USD



sectorGov’t

agencyDonors


Time-frame

Improvement ofEWS to reduceimpacts of climatechange and hazards

NAPA Option III and IV reformulated: Capacity building formonitoring and predicting CC impacts to deliver early warningsand improve local and national planning and adaptation to CCand capacity building to integrate CC into development plans.

CC adaptation MNR,LMS

UNEP (GEFfunded)

$1,595,000USD (GEF)$1,595,000

USD (co-financing)

2011-2014

Improvement ofcapabilities to copewith naturaldisasters caused byclimate change

Objective to contribute to disaster management by extending thegrant for procurement of equipment and services necessary forpreparation against natural disasters: (1) water purificationsystems; (2) automatic weather station.

CC adaptation LMS,DRWS

Gov’t of Japan 3.85 M€ 2011-2014

Enhancingresilience andresponsivenessthrough DRR

Support development of the EWS to ensure that an effective foodsecurity information system is in place. Enhancing resilience andresponsiveness through DRR / development of the EWS.

CC adaptation MAFS WFP, FAO 7,700€

M&E for theagriculture andfood security sector

TA to design the agriculture sector M&E system and capacitybuilding – help establish a functioning M&E system with theMAFS which should be able to assess performance of the varioussector programmes and make informed policy recommendations.

Overarching(incl. land

degradation,CC adaptation)

MAFS FAO 210,000€ 2012

Framework forstrengtheningcapacity for CCadaptation inagriculture

Assessment of livelihood vulnerability to CC in food securityweather and climate services for smallholders.

CC adaptation FAO

Small-scaleirrigationdevelopmentproject

Including: (1) rainwater and run-off water harvesting; (2) small-scale irrigation; (3) medium- to large-scale commercialirrigation; (4) land improvement; (5) capacity building andsupport services.

Water MAFS FAO

SmallholderAgricultureDevelopmentProject

The project has 3 components: (i) increase agric. marketopportunities; (ii) market-oriented smallholder production; and(iii) project management. Focus is not on CC adaptation or NRM,but its 2nd component included helping semi-subsistenceproducers move towards increased commercialization, whileensuring sustainable natural resource management.

CC adaptation MAFS IFADWB

$34.5 million

NB: onlysmall parttargeting

NRM

2011-2018



sectorGov’t

agencyDonors


Time-frame

Conservationagriculture,coordination andadvocacy inSouthern Africa

CC adaptation MAFS FAO 2007-2012

Maseru WastewaterProject (MWWP) –Medium termworks

Increasing coverage of sanitation in Maseru, with an impact inreducing pollution of the Caledon River.

Water andSanitation

WASA EU (ACP-EUWater

Facility)

10 M€ 2007-2012

Water andSanitation SPSP

Sector budget support. The programme will provide support tothe implementation of the water and sanitation policy.Performance indicators are related to rural and urban watersupply and rural and urban sanitation

Water andSanitation

MNR EU 32 M€ 2011-2013

Support to theClimate ChangeResponse Strategy

CC adaptationand mitigation

GoL EU (GCCAfacility)

4 M€ 2013

GEF Small GrantsProgramme

Main achievements: (i) Country Programme with portfolio of 16projects implemented by 16 local NGOs/CBOs; (ii) betterappreciation among local NGOs/CBOs of the nationalenvironmental problems and the challenges they present tonational development; (iii) establishment of communitybotanical gardens; (iv) increased awareness on environmentallyfriendly renewable energy technologies; (v) contribution towardsenhancement of livelihoods and status of herd boys/herders andharnessing of their indigenous knowledge and experience insustainable range resources management; (vi) capacity ofNGOs/CBOs in project development and management enhanced…

Strengtheningof NSA

LocalNGOsand

CBOs

UNDP (GEFfunded)

$1,200,000USD

2011-2014

Water SectorImprovement APLPhase II: MetolongDam and WaterSupply

(i) developing and sustaining an environmentally sound, sociallyresponsible and financially viable framework for the MetolongDam Water Supply Programme (MDWSP); (ii) increasingquantity of safe, bulk water supplied to Teyateyaneng; (iii)strengthening institutions and related instruments in the watersector.

Water andSanitation

World Bank



sectorGov’t

agencyDonors


Time-frame

MountainIntegratedConservationAgriculture (MICA)in Lesotho

Strengthen rural mountain livelihoods for 12,000 individuals bycombining promotion of conservation agriculture with improvedaccess to markets and improved seed varieties and fertilisers.The project aims to increase agric. production whilst reducingvulnerabilities of livelihoods to drought and soil erosion.

CC adaptation MAFS USAID(implemente

d by CAREand CRS)

Lesotho IrrigationProject III (LIP III)

The project seeks to reduce vulnerability of rural households todrought and soil erosion, while building household resiliency andstrengthening rural livelihoods. It includes elements of low-techirrigation and conservation agriculture.

CC adaptation MAFS USAID (impl.by CRS,

World Visionand CARE)

Home Grown –Keyhole Gardensfor DRR learningInitiative

“Home grown” learning initiative to disseminate KeyholeGardens for DRR.

CC adaptation USAID(implemente

d by CRS)

Families Unite forLivelihoods inLesotho (FULL)project

Comprehensive approach to improve food security of vulnerablefamilies. Improve sustainable agricultural production athomestead and field levels whilst building the capacity of ruralfamilies to better manage local natural resources.

CC adaptation Irish Aid(implemente

d by CRS)

RWSS StrategicInvestment Plan

Assist sector agencies to better manage operation anddevelopment of sector facilities based on a sound StrategicInvestment Plan and its underlying database and planningmodels.

Water andSanitation

MNR AfDB ~250,000 €

Rural ElectrificationProject

Renewable energy component: (i) rehabilitation of the 2MWMant’onyane mini hydropower station and (ii) installation of 350home solar systems as part of the Mphaki Pilot Projects.Distribution network: construction of substations in Maseru andconstruction of transmission lines. TA for feasibility study of atransmission line. Main deliverables: provide electricity access toadditional 8,000 customers including 5,000 in Maseru, 1,500 inHlotse and 1,500 in Mphaki.

CC mitigation MFDP AfDB ~7.85 M€

Moshoeshoe I SolarProject

Installation of solar energy at the international airport. CC mitigation MPWTMNR

JICA ~ 50,000 €



sectorGov’t

agencyDonors


Time-frame

Village WaterSupply

The Rural Water Supply Programme installs water systems toprovide adequate and sustainable potable water supplies to ruralcommunities. Includes: preliminary village survey, waterresources assessments, feasibility studies, system design andconstruction of new water schemes and rehabilitation of existingwater systems.

Water andSanitation

MNR Irish Aid 17.7 M€ 2010-2015

Maseru WasteWater

(i) construction of Lesotho Agriculture College WWTP; (ii)rehabilitation and extension of sewerage system; (iii)construction of new pumping stations and rehabilitation ofexisting ones; (iv) on-site treatment facilities in unsewered areas;(b) expansion of WASCO coverage customer base by connectingdomestic, commercial and industrial sectors.

Water andSanitation

MNR EU 11 M€ 2010-2014

Six Towns WaterSupply andSanitation

Water supply and sanitation in Maputsoe, Teyateyaneng andRoma.

Water andSanitation

MNR EU 21 M€ 2010-2013

Recently completed programmes/projects


sectorGov’t

agencyDonors


Time-frame

Lesotho RenewableEnergy-based RuralElectrification(LREBRE)

The project aims at reducing Lesotho’s energy related CO2

emissions by promoting renewable and low-GHG technologies.CC mitigation MNR

Dep. ofEnergy

UNDP (GEFfunded), WB,private sector

$2,500,000USD

2006-2010

Enhancing Nationaland Local Capacityin DRR in Lesotho

Project strategy focuses on strengthening the disastermanagement system and effective management of the impact ofdisaster risks within the context of sustainable development.

CC adaptation DMA UNDP $373,000USD

2008-2009

InnovativePartnerships forSolid WasteManagement inLesotho

Support to the development of financially sustainable andinnovative PPPs for basic service delivery, in particular solid wastemanagement services within urban and peri-urban areas in the cityof Maseru.

WasteManagement

MaseruCity

Council

UNDP $300,000USD

2009


Maloti-DrakensbergTrans-frontierConservation andDevelopmentProject (MDTP)

Collaboration between Lesotho and RSA to protect the biodiversityof the Drakensberg and Maloti mountains through conservation,sustainable resource use, land use and development planning. Theproject aimed at conserving the global biodiversity, and contributeto community development through income generation fromnature-based tourism.

Biodiversity RSA World Bank(GEF)

$7,925,000USD

2001-2009


Appendix 5: List of stakeholders consulted

Organisation Name Position Tel. e-mail

European UnionDelegation (EUD)

(Ms) JosephineKALINAUCKAS

22272200 [email protected]

(Mr) Hans DUYNHOUWER Head of Delegation 22272200 [email protected]

(Ms) Laura LINDORO Attaché Operations,Infrastructure and GenderFocal Point


National AuthorisingOffice (NAO)

(Mr) Molise KOTO Chief Economic Planner 22311100

58844726

Molise.kotogov.ls

[email protected]

(Ms) Mateboho LEFOSA 63007704 mateboholefosa@yahoocom

[email protected]

(Ms) Jackie KONING NAO Advisor

Irish Aid (Mr) Matela THABANE Senior Advisor, Programmes& Results


GIZ (Dr) Markus NUDING Programme Director 22323391 [email protected]

(Ms) Anita HERNIG Advisor, Decentralisation 22323391

62333576

[email protected]

(Mr) Arjen DE WIT Advisor, Decentralisation [email protected]

UNDP (Ms) Agi VERES Deputy ResidentRepresentative

22313790

58851175

[email protected]

(Mr) Lineo MDEE Sustainable DevelopmentAdvisor



(Mr) Limomane PESHOANE Climate Change Specialist 22313790 [email protected]

(Mr) Bore MOTSAMAI SLM Project Manager 58850604 [email protected]

(Mr) Steve ODWYER SLM Project Focal Point 59753767 [email protected]

WFP (Mr) Rui POSSOLO Head of Programme &Logistics

22323989 ext2010;

62000035

[email protected]

(Mr) Bilé KHALIF Disaster Risk ReductionCoordinator

[email protected]

FAO (Mr) Attaher MAIGA Representative in Lesotho 58852208 [email protected]

(Mr) Mokitinyane NTHIMO Assistance FAORepresentative


(Ms) Florence CONTEH Food Security and NaturalResources Officer


World Bank (Mr) Macmillan ANYANWU Senior Operations OfficerAFMLS

5888775522217000

[email protected]

NSDP Secretariat, MFDP (Ms) Nthoateng LEBONA Project Coordinator 22314057

63128636

[email protected]

[email protected]

Department ofEnvironment (DoE)(MTEC)

(Mr) Stanley DAMANE Director & GEF National FocalPoint

62000010;22311767;22320534

[email protected]

(Ms) Bokang THEKO Director of BiodiversityConservation


Disaster ManagementAuthority (DMA)

(Ms) M MOJAKI Chief Executive Officer 58870242 [email protected]

(Ms) Pulahe MAKRLE Senior Economic Planner 58068509 [email protected]


(Mr) Lebohane MOLETSANE Senior Training Officer 58901700 [email protected]

Thabo PITSO Economic Planner 58740788 [email protected]

(Ms) M. MALOI Planner 22324429

Lesotho MeteorologicalServices (LMS)

(Mrs) ‘Mabafokeng’ MathaboMAHAHABISA

Principal Meteorologist 63008608 [email protected]

(Ms) Malehloa JOCKEY Meteorologist 22325041 [email protected]

Ministry of Agricultureand Food Security (MAFS)

(Mr) Nchemo MAILE Principal Secretary 58882840 [email protected]

Office of theCommissioner of Water(CoW) (MNR)

(Mr) Motoho MASEATILE Acting Commissioner ofWater


(Mr) Felix MALACHAMELA Monitoring & Evaluation

(Ms) Mosa MOLAHLEHI Information Technology

(Ms) Maliketso MALEPHANE Chief Economic Planner

Ministry of NaturalResources (MNR)

(Ms) Palesa MOLAPO Lowlands Water Supply Unit(LWSU)

Department of WaterAffairs (DWA) (MNR)

(Mr) Mokake MOJAKISANE Director 5883948

[email protected]

Department of RuralWater Supply (DRWS)(MNR)

(Mr) K CHELI

Lesotho HighlandsDevelopment Authority(LHDA)

(Mr) Peter MAKUTA Manager, Development andOperations Division (DOD)


Department of Energy(MNR)

(Mr) Mokhethi SEITLHEKO PEO Renewable Energy 22322349

22313120

[email protected]

Ministry of Forestry andLand Reclamation (MFLR)

(Mr) Lechesa NTHULANYANE Project Officer

(Dr) Refuoe BOOSE Chief Conservation Officer

(Mrs) Palesa MOLAPO Principal ConservationOfficer

(Mr) Thabo MOTSOANE GIS Manager (ConservationDepartment)

(Mrs) Mamokoli SEKANTSI Principal Soil Scientist(Conservation Department)

(Mr) Elias SEKALELI Director of Forestry 58884338 [email protected]

(Mr) Peter Halefele MATSIPA Chief Forestry Officer(Forestry Department)

(Mr) Henning FATH CIM-GIZ Forestry Advisor tothe MFLR


[email protected]

(Ms) BULANE Acting Director, RangeManagement

Chief Range Officer

Ministry of LocalGovernment andChieftainship

(Ms) MamosiuoaMASENYETSE

Head of the DecentralisationUnit


(Mr) Charles McEWEN Policy Advisor,Decentralisation

Ministry of Health (Mr) Nkoebe Samuel THEKO Chief Environmental Officer 68053711 [email protected]


(Dr) Rudolf SCHUMACHER Director, Family MedicineSpecialty TrainingProgramme (Leribe)


Roads Directorate(MPWT)

(Mr) Seboka THAMAE Manager, Road Safety andEnvironment


National University ofLesotho (NUL)

(Prof) Makoala MARAKE Soil Sciences Department [email protected]

[email protected]

Consultants (Mr) Miguel FERNANDEZ-TRILLO

GCCA formulation missionconsultant


(Mr) Borja MIGUELEZ Consultant to FAO 57032240 [email protected]

(Mr) Jens VAD Consultant to the EU onwater sector M&E


Catholic Relief Service(CRS)

(Mr) Gonzalo SOLARES-PAREJA

Food Security ProgrammeManager

57105069

[email protected]

Lesotho Council of NGOs(LCN)

(Mr) Tseliso TSOEU Agriculture, Environment andNatural ResourcesCommission Coordinator

22317205

[email protected]

(Ms) Selloane JONE Health CommissionCoordinator


(Mr) Kopano MASILO Economic Justice Coordinator [email protected]

Transformation ResourceCentre (TRC)

(Mr) Moeketsi MATLI Environment ProgrammeOfficer

22314463

6349650

[email protected]

Ex-miners Lesotho (Mr) Lerato NKHETSE 59519138 [email protected]

(Mr) Rantso MANTSI 58947944 [email protected]


Blue Cross TB (Ms) Polo MATSINYANE 58812449 [email protected]

Leribe DistrictAdministration

(Mr) Molise MOFOLO District Administrator 58784282

22300293

[email protected]

Community Councils (Ms) Lineo KIKINE Community Council Secretary(Sephokong Council)

(Ms) Lemohag MAHAO Community Council Secretary(Sephoking Council)

Representatives of MAFS and MFLR at local level; Community Councils; Area Chiefs; members of Range Management Associations; and farmers wereconsulted as part of the visit to the UNDP SLM project areas.


Appendix 6: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)Screening for a sector support to the water sector

Part 1: Screening list and questionnaire

SEA screening list for focal areas

An SEA of sector policies and programmes is particularly appropriate in connection with sectorsupport in environmentally sensitive focal areas. The following areas of cooperation areconsidered as “environmentally sensitive”:

Infrastructure, communications and transport

Water and energy

Natural resources management (including forestry, fisheries and waste management)

Rural development, territorial planning, agriculture and food security (including forestryand fisheries)

Other cooperation areas might have significant environmental impacts or be significantlydependent on environmental constraints (including those that result from increasing climatevariability and climate change), in which case the need for an SEA should be considered.

Based on the first part of the SEA screening process an SEA is recommended, as water isan environmentally sensitive sector. However, the preparation of the CountryEnvironmental Profile (CEP) gave special attention to the water sector policy, and thusthe screening questionnaire (Part 2 of the SEA screening process) is used to decide if anSEA would still be required to ensure that the SPSP to the water sector adequatelyintegrates the environment.

SEA screening questionnaire

The SEA questionnaire is composed of two parts: the first looks at possible environmentalconstraints, impacts and opportunities related to the sector policy and strategy including climatechange risks; the second looks at context and process-related aspects that need to be taken intoaccount when considering the need for an SEA.

SEA Screening Questionnaire YES ? NO

Part I – Possible impacts, constraints and opportunities1. Are there any indications at this stage of negative environmental impacts that

might be significant and require further study?

2. Is the sector policy/programme likely to include a large number of Category Aor B projects that could interact to produce significant cumulativeenvironmental impacts?

3. Is the sector policy/programme likely to significantly affect valued areas orlandscapes with national or international protection status?

4. Is the sector policy/programme likely to significantly affect known vulnerableareas?

5. Does the sector policy/programme significantly increase the risk of a negativeimpact on human health or safety?

6. Are there indications at this stage that the sector policy/programme will have adirect and significant influence on other environmentally sensitive sectors?

7. Is the achievement of the sector policy/programme’s objectives directly andsignificantly dependent on the availability of scarce natural resources?

8. Are there indications at this stage that the sector policy/programme maycontribute to a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions (relative to thecurrent level of national emissions) or, on the contrary, has the potential toreduce such emissions or fix significant amounts of carbon?


9. Are there indications at this stage that the sector policy/programme maysubstantially increase the vulnerability of the population to increasing climatevariability and/or the expected effects of climate change?

Part II – Context and process10. Does analytical work exist that could inform the environmental screening of

the sector policy/programme?

11. Do the policy, programme, legal and regulatory framework promotes soundenvironmental management at sector level?

12. Are partner institutions considering measures to address sector-relatedenvironmental concerns and exploit opportunities to contribute to theachievement of environmental and development goals?

13. Do institutional capacities exist to implement those measures? 14. Are there any local processes to promote harmonisation and alignment

(involving multiple stakeholders; partner institutions, donors, developmentpartners, non governmental organisations and civil society) that may addresssector-related environmental concerns?

Interpreting the answers

If the answer to one or more of the questions under Part I of the screening questionnaire is YES,and SEA is in principle recommended. Local context and processes should be taken into accountto identify whether action might already be underway or planned to address environmentalsustainability concerns.

Should a decision be made not to carry out an SEA, this should be justified in the summary ofSEA screening outcomes (see below). In this case, issues identified under Part I and II of thescreening questionnaire should be considered in the context of the formulation study. Thesupport of the environmental services (in-house or in the country) may be requested to thiseffect.

Part 2: Summary of SEA screening outcomes

The following information should be provided as an annex to the SPSP Identification fiche,along with the documentation submitted to the Quality Support Group.

SUMMARY OF SEA SCREENING OUTCOMES

An SEA will be undertaken

Key environmental aspects will be addressed in the formulation study

No SEA required, no further action required

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SEA SCREENING:

A distinction must be made between the Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy (LWSP), which is thefocus of the current water sector support, and the policy for the wider water sector, which is notreflected in a single policy document. The LWSP is centred on the following policy statements:

Policy Statement 1: Manage water resources in an integrated and sustainable manner to ensure availabilityof this resource in adequate quantities and quality for present and future social, economic andenvironmental needs.

Policy Statement 2: Ensure access to a sustainable supply of potable water and basic sanitation servicesfor all Basotho.

Policy Statement 3: Protect and conserve water resources and minimise the adverse impacts of socio-economic development activities on water.


Policy Statement 4: Manage trans-boundary water resources on the basis of Lesotho’s sovereignty in aaway that ensures maximum benefits while taking cognisance of her obligations to downstream usersunder international law.

Policy Statement 5: Adopt a sector wide approach to water resources management and to water supplyand sanitation services development, in order to ensure effective and efficient use of internal and externalresources.

Policy Statement 6: Ensure participatory approach with effective involvement of all stakeholders atdifferent levels in water resources management and development in order to ensure sustainability of sectorprogrammes.

Policy Statement 7: Put in place appropriate institutional arrangements and a legislative framework forthe sustainable development and management of the nation’s water resources and for the supply of waterand sanitations services.

As can be seen from the above Policy Statements, the overall focus of the LWSP is positive, withno major environmental impacts expected.

However, the wider (and largely un-written) policy of Lesotho towards the management of waterresources is centred on the large-scale capture and storage of water for its transfer to SouthAfrica, under the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP). The LHWP involves theconstruction of large dams (two completed at the moment and a third one agreed, but a total ofsix large dams foreseen); as well, the supply of water to Lesotho’s lowlands will be largelysatisfied by another dam (Metolong dam).

This policy to the water sector is environmentally sensitive to a large extent. Although all projectsfor dams are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), there is likely to be asignificant cumulative impact of the set of foreseen dams, which is not being analysed. As well amore strategic dimension of the impacts from the dams is not being addressed, such as: the long-term impact on the availability of water to satisfy the national population (for water supply,irrigation, industry) and taking into account the potential effects of climate change (e.g. it will beincreasingly important to develop small-scale irrigation as an adaptation measures, groundwaterlevels are likely to decrease).

The reply to the screening questionnaire above shows in black the responses corresponding tothe LWSP, whilst in grey it shows the responses taking also into account the LHWP.

The following conclusions are made on the SEA screening:

1. The LWSP implementation is not expected to result in significant adverseimpacts on the environment. It actually has the potential to contributesignificantly to address key environmental concerns through the watershedmanagement approach.

Thus, the EU water sector support should be used to ensure these opportunitiesare taken, by actively promoting the implementation of an integrated watercatchment management approach, as well as the advance of small-scale irrigation– a key climate change adaptation measure. More details on the form thissupport can take are included in the section of recommendations in the CountryEnvironmental Profile (CEP).

2. In spite the implementation of the LWSP is not expected to result in significantadverse impacts on the environment, wider Government policy to watermanagement, especially in the form of the LHWP, is likely to result in significantenvironmental impacts of a cumulative nature.

It is thus recommended that the EU promote (and if possible support financially)– as part of its policy dialogue – the undertaking of a cumulative impactassessment for all current and foreseen dams in Lesotho, also taking into accountexplicitly the expected effects of climate change and increased climate variabilityand the socio-economic impacts (e.g. on water availability for the Basotho


population, including to satisfy requirements for climate change adaptation, suchas small-scale irrigation).


Appendix 7: Synthesis of recommendations and indicators

Area: Land DegradationRecommended areas of attention Recommended indicators for

considerationRecommended as a sector of cooperation due to itslinks to development, poverty and current insufficientattention

Stocking rates

Number of livestock farmers underfunctional Range ManagementAssociations

Hectares under conservationagriculture

Number of approved land use plans

Rate of encroachment on arable land

Expenditure on research on soilerosion

Land degradation monitoring systemestablished

Focus on building ownership and creation of effectiveinter-institutional coordination mechanismsUse sector support as the preferred aid deliverymodalityAchieve alignment of policies that have key focus onland degradation, and clearly define responsibilities forimplementationUse of long-term Technical Assistance, complementedwith ownership- and capacity-building activitiesDefine a baseline for land degradation, building onUNDP experiencesEnsure donor coordination to ensure complementarityArea: Environmental Governance

Recommended areas of attention Recommended indicators forconsideration

Recommended as a sector of cooperation due to theimportance of environment for national development,livelihoods and links to poverty, as well as thepromotion of environmentally sensitive industry andcurrent deficit of attention

Number of effluent licenses andpollution licenses issued by the DoE

Number of inspections carried outby the DoE

Establishment of the EnvironmentalTribunal

Number of effluent monitoringreports submitted by industry to theDoE (in case such a provision isestablished)

Approval of effluent qualitystandards

Compliance of industry withapproved effluent quality standards

Focus on awareness raising at the political level onlinks between environmental degradation, poverty andeconomic growthUse of Technical Assistance to prepare a detailedeconomic valuation of natural resources andenvironmental degradation to support awarenessraisingPromotion of Strategic Environmental Assessment asa tool for better environmental mainstreamingPromote awareness raising of the general population,including journalists, civil society, and through theeducation systemPromote strengthening of environmental integration inkey ministriesPromote policy dialogue on the need to enhanceenvironmental governanceReview the Environment Act 2008 to optimise andenhance its performanceSupport effective implementation of the EnvironmentActArea: Energy


Ensure environment and climate change aremainstreamed in a potential support to the energysector

% of households that use sustainablymanaged woodlots to secure wood


Ensure support to energy sector addresses reducedreliance on wood as a source of household energy and(mainly) the increase of sustainably managed sourcesof fuel wood

for energy purposes

% of energy needs (cooking, heating,lighting) satisfied by wood

Maximise opportunities for low-carbon sources ofenergy, in line with a “green growth” approachEnsure the MFLR is engaged in the sector support,together with the Energy DepartmentSeek alignment of the Renewable Energy Policy(upcoming) with the National Forestry PolicyPrepare a screening for Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment of the energy sector policy whoseimplementation will be supported, and carry out theSEA if neededArea: Water


Continue support to the water sector Number of water catchmentmanagement plans developed andapproved

Establishment of a water catchmentmanagement coordinating body

Area (ha) under irrigated agriculture

% of households practicing irrigationagriculture

Focus support on the implementation of integratedwater catchment management, with possible focus onsmall scale irrigation (adaptation to climate change)Support establishment of M&E system (and itsbaseline) for the water sector in accordance withrecommendations by Vad and Kiwango (2011)Support inter-institutional coordination for integratedwater catchment managementSupport alignment of sector policies, especiallybetween the Water and Sanitation Policy (andupcoming Long-term Water and Sanitation Strategy)and the up-coming Soil and Water ConservationPolicy, the Range Resources Management Policy andthe Irrigation PolicySupport activities such as long-term TA for inter-institutional coordination, study tours, trainings, etc.If land degradation is not selected as an area for EUsupport, ensure support to the water sector integrateskey land degradation variablesIntegrate areas of attention identified in SEA screeninginto SPSP identification and formulation, includingpromotion of a cumulative impacts assessment for thenetwork of (current and future) damsArea: EU Delegation procedures


Undertake EIA and SEA screenings as part of theidentification of all projects (EIA screening) and sector(SEA screening) supportPromote and prepare SEAs where necessary, incoordination with the GoL and other donorsIn analysing environment as a cross-cutting issue aspart of identification and formulation, address not onlypotential impacts but also look for opportunities toaddress environmental concerns in the sector


Appendix 8: Study methodology

The methodology employed in the preparation of the Country Environmental Profile(CEP) is based on the EC Guidelines for Integration of Environment and Climate Change inDevelopment Cooperation (2009). The CEP was prepared in the April-July, 2012 periodby a team of two consultants (the Team Leader with expertise in environmental policyand management and detailed knowledge of environmental integration tools andmethods and EC programming; and a water sector expert due to the importance of thissector for Lesotho). Most of the work was carried out in Lesotho, with a smallerprovision of home-based days allocated to literature review, preparation of the missionand finalisation of the CEP report.

The preparation of the CEP is based primarily on an exhaustive review of existing dataand information on the state of the environment (i.e. no primary data is collected),which is validated and expanded through stakeholder consultations. Bilateral semi-structured interviews were carried out with key stakeholders from governmentinstitutions at the national, regional and local level; development partners; and non-state actors.

As well site visits were carried out to see key environmental issues on-site and have anopportunity to meet with stakeholders at the district and local level. A site visit wasorganised to UNDP Sustainable Land Management (SLM) project areas aroundSemonkong (accompanying a UNDP monitoring mission), as well as a site visit to Leribe(targeting district and local authorities) and to the industrial area around Maseru,

A stakeholders’ workshop was carried out on 19 June at the Maseru Sun hotel, with theobjective of presenting the CEP findings to key stakeholders, and discuss theopportunities and options for the EU to better address the key environmental aspectsidentified in the development cooperation under the 11th EDF.

The draft CEP report was circulated to key stakeholders for comments and to verify theaccuracy of its findings.


Appendix 9: Consultants’ itinerary

The table below provides an overview of the key stages in the elaboration of the CEP.

Dates Main Activities

09-20/04 Literature review (policy, legislation, sector reports, academic publications, etc.)

21-22/04 Travel to Lesotho (Team Leader)

23/04 Briefing in the EUD/NAO (TL)

24/04-30/05 Stakeholder consultations (bilateral interviews)

03/05 Travel to Lesotho (water sector expert)

14-16/05 Site visit to Semonkong area

22/05 Site visit to Leribe

28/05 Start of activities of new water sector expert

30/05 Site visit to industrial area around Maseru

31/05 Presentation of preliminary findings at EUD

01-02/06 Travel to Europe (TL)

28/05-13/06 Stakeholder consultations (water sector expert)

04-15/06 Write-up and preparation of workshop

17-18/06 Travel to Lesotho (TL)

19/06 Stakeholders’ workshop (Maseru)

20-21/06 Travel to Europe (TL)

26/06 Submission of draft CEP report

27/06- Review of draft report by stakeholders

Submission of final CEP report


Appendix 10: CV of the consultants

Framework Contract FWC BENEF – Lot N°6 – Consortium Safege – Juan PALERM - Page 1/6

CURRICULUM VITAE

Position: Senior Expert I – Environment / Climate issues – Team LeaderCategory: SeniorStaff of: Safege

1. Surname: PALERM2. Name: Juan3. Date and place of birth: 01 October 1971, Guadalajara, Mexico4. Nationality: Spanish5. Residence: Barcelona, Spain6. Education and training:

Institution [ Date from - Date to ] Degree(s) or Diploma(s) obtained

GTZ GmbH – Bonn, Germany - 23-30 June, 2010Training of Trainers – GTZ/InWEnt

Strategic Environmental Assessment Training.Imperial College, University of London - October 1995 -

December 1998PhD in Environmental Policy and Management

Imperial College, University of London - October 1994 -September 1995

MSc in Environmental TechnologyDiploma of Imperial College (DIC)

University of Guadalajara, Mexico – January 1994 -September 1994

Diploma in Environmental Management

ITESO University, Mexico - August 1989 - June 1993 Chemical Engineer

7. Language skills (1 – excellent; 5 - basic):

Language Passive Spoken WrittenSpanish (Mother Tongue) 1 1 1

English 1 1 1

8. Membership of Professional Bodies:- Member of the pool of trainers for GTZ/InWEnt training programme on Strategic Environmental Assessment- International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (member of sections on SEA and public participation)- Member of the ReCoMaP (Regional Coastal Management Programme, Indian Ocean) Regional Technical

Advisory Panel- Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management – Member of the Editorial Committee

9. Other skills relevant to the position: Full computer literacy; communication skills; analytical skills;experience working in multicultural contexts and with wide range of stakeholders (industry, government,NGOs); knowledge of international environmental policy instruments,

10. Present Position: Environmental Expert

11. Years of professional experience: 18

12. Key qualifications (relevant to the project): Environmental expert with almost 20 years experience in environmental analysis and management As member of the former Helpdesk for Environmental Integration in EC Development Cooperation:

- Participation in the assessment of Country Environmental Profile (CEP) quality, and in the definition ofthe quality assessment criteria; Review of around a dozen draft CEP reports submitted by consultants(e.g. Philippines, Syria, Zambia, Brazil)

- Delivery of training on environmental integration to staff from the EC and from partner governments,including on preparation of CEPs and their use in programming, as well as training to RELEX (Directorate-General for the External Relations ) on use of CEPs in programming

Experience as Team Leader on more than EC 10 projects, including Team Leader in the preparation of theCountry Environmental Profile (CEP) of Bolivia (2011)

Previous experience in legislation / policies / strategies analyses in the environment sector(renewable energy, costal management, climate change, water and waste water management)

Good knowledge and understanding of EC development cooperation programming and procedures,logical framework approach and Project Cycle Management

Experience in stakeholder consultations and participatory planning, including organisation andfacilitation of participatory planning workshops

Experience in mainstreaming gender and climate change issues into environmental studies Experience in southern and eastern Africa

13. Specific experience in the region (Africa)

Country Year Country YearSwaziland 2010 Sierra Leone 2011, 2010Zambia 2009 Kenya 2007Madagascar 2011, 2007 Tanzania 2007Rwanda 2011 Zanzibar 2007

CONSORTIUMSAFEGE FWC-Lot 6


14. Specific experience:

Date Location Company & reference person Position Description

10/2011– 01/12

RwandaEC / SAFEGE. Mr David Landais

[email protected] expert

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Agriculture Sector in Rwanda.Prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources of Rwanda and the EU Del.to Rwanda.

09/2011 EUEC / AGRECO. Mr Frank Feys

[email protected] expert

Internal analysis of the effectiveness of EC development cooperation SEAs, based onthe experience of projects implemented by AGRECO.

06/2011 HondurasAIDCO / MDF Training &

ConsultancyEnvironmentexpert/ trainer

Regional Training on “Greening Environment in EC Development Cooperation” for EUdelegations and partner institutions in Latin America.

04/2011to date

ChileEU Delegation to Chile / Particip

GmbH. Jörg Bö[email protected]

SEA expert

Pilot Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA): SEA for the “Model City TransportPlan of the City of Antofagasta” and “Regional Infrastructure Plan of the Region ofMagallanes and the Chilean Antartida” as part of the process of developing andimplementing the national SEA system in Chile.

04-07/2011

EU

AIDCO E6 / MDF Training &Consultancy

Ms Melinda Wezenaar (MDF) [email protected]

EnvironmentalExpert

Third assessment exercise of the degree of environment and climate change integrationinto EU development cooperation projects and programmes. Assessment of around100 projects and programmes (including general budget support programmes) andcomparison to the exercises carried out in the previous 2 years.

03-04/2011

SierraLeone

EC / Montgomery Watson Belgium- Ms Florine Thiery

[email protected]

Team Leader /Climate Change

Expert

Formulation of a project for support to climate change mitigation and adaptation, underthe Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA).

03/2011Madagascar (HB work)

EC / MDF Training & ConsultancyMs Melinda Wezenaar. [email protected]

SEA expertReview of Strategic Environmental Assessment for the sugar sector adaptation strategyreports.

01-03/2011

BoliviaEU Delegation to Bolivia

AGRECO

Team Leader /EnvironmentalPolicy Expert

Preparation of Bolivia’s Country Environmental Profile (CEP).Environmental Analysis for the EU support to Protected Areas in Bolivia – analysis ofthe strategic environmental dimension, providing recommendations for better environmentalmainstreaming into the Sector Budget Support to the national system of protected areas.

11-12/2010

SierraLeone

EC / Agrer - Mr Frank [email protected]

Team Leader /Environmental

Governance

Formulation of the Environmental Governance and Mainstreaming project. Preparationof the corresponding Action Fiche (AF) and Technical and Administrative Provisions (TAP).

10/2010to date

GeneralIFC / Scott Wilson (UK)Dr Jeremy Richardson

[email protected]

EnvironmentalExpert

Expert contributions and advice to the preparation of the “Corporate InfrastructureAdvisory Climate Change Strategy – Sector Briefing Papers” of the International FinanceCorporation (IFC).

09/2010to date

ZambiaEC Delegation ZambiaMs Stephanie Rousseau

[email protected]

EnvironmentalExpert

Effectiveness assessment of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the ZambiaNational Sugar Strategy. Project elaborated with the objective of presenting theeffectiveness of the SEA process at the International Association for Impact Assessmentannual meeting in 2011.

05-09/2010

ParaguayIADB/ IberGeo

Ms Judith [email protected]

SEA TeamLeader

Strategic Environmental Assessment of tourism development programme.International advisor to project team and quality support.

06/2010 PeruEC / MDF Training & Consultancy

Ms Melinda Wezenaar (MDF)[email protected]

EnvironmentalSpecialist /

trainer

Regional Environmental Mainstreaming in EC Development Cooperation Training.Delivered on behalf of the European Commission (AIDCO E6) to staff from EC Delegationsin Latin America and Country Partners (Government, NGOs…) The training addressesenvironmental integration throughout the EC’s Cycle of Operations for developmentcooperation and under the main aid delivery modalities (projects, sector support and


general budget support).

02-06/2010

SwazilandEC/ GFA

[email protected] Leader /

SEA ExpertStrategic Environmental Assessment for Swaziland’s National Adaptation Strategy(NAS, sugar sector), including integration of Climate Change adaptation measures.

08-12/2009

ZambiaEC / AGRECO. Ms Muriel Vives

[email protected] Leader /

SEA Expert

Strategic Environmental Assessment for Zambia’s National Sugar Strategy, in thecontext of the EU sugar reform, including integration of climate change adaptationmeasures.

03-06/200905/2010

EU

European Environment Agency/ Collingwood Environmental

Planning (UK)- Mr William [email protected]

EnvironmentalSpecialist

Participation in the BLOSSOM project of the European Environment Agency, assessingfutures planning in environment in the EU member states, and their influence in policy-making.

03/2009 ZambiaEC - Ms Stephanie Rousseau

[email protected] Specialist

Organisation and facilitation of workshops on Strategic Environmental Assessment inthe Sugar and the Roads sectors for EC staff, Government of Zambia staff and other keystakeholders in the framework of preparation for SEAs in these sectors.

01-03/2009

JamaicaEC / AGRECO. Ms Muriel Vives

[email protected] Leader

Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Sugar Reform Multi-annual AdaptationStrategy of the Government of Jamaica, including integration of climate changeadaptation measures.

09/2008 Costa Rica

Netherlands Commission forEnvironmental Assessment and

IUCN. Mr Rob [email protected]

SEA SpecialistCapacity-building and technical assistance to IUCN Central America on the integration ofSEA for land use planning in Central America.

Fulltime:05-

12/200805/2005

-03/2007

Ad hocsupport:05/2007

;12/2007

;01/2009- to date

EU andWorldwide

EC / AGRECO. Ms Muriel Vives(AGRECO)

[email protected]. +32.2.6263320

Mr Gianluca Azzoni (AIDCO)[email protected]

Tel. +32.2.2962828

EnvironmentalSpecialistSEA/EIA

and trainer

Full-time member of the Helpdesk for Environmental Integration into EC DevelopmentCooperation. The Mainstreaming the Environment into EC Development Co-operationproject provides assistance to the EC (especially Aidco, DG Relex, DG Development, DGEnvironment, and EC Delegations) on environmental integration in EC development co-operation.It includes the preparation of a Handbook on Environmental Integration in ECDevelopment Co-operation, also training in Brussels and EC Delegations and theprovision of HelpDesk services. Delivered Regional training seminars in: Peru, Chile,Nicaragua (twice), Dominican Republic, Colombia, Ukraine, Bolivia, Venezuela and Syria,apart from Brussels.

Specific activities have included, amongst others:- Design of framework for CEPs (Country Environmental Profiles) and model ToR

for the EC- Specific training to EC staff and partner Governments on SEA, preparation of

CEPs, environmental integration into Country Strategy Papers and theinternational climate change regime

- Ad hoc training to DG RELEX on use of CEPs in the programming phase- Quality review of various of Country Environmental Profiles and their integration

into programming documents (including, e.g. Colombia, India, Vietnam, Yemen,Zambia, Philippines, Asia [regional]).

- Design of SEA approach applicable to EC development co-operation, including modelToR and screening procedures

- Preparation and application of indicators for environmental integration into EC


development cooperation projects and Sector Policy Support Programmes- Preparation of Sector Guidance Notes for integration of Climate Change

considerations into the EC’s Mid-Term Review Process- Review of process and follow up of SEA for the sea defences policy, Guyana- Review of process and follow up of SEA for the transport Sector Policy Support

Programme, Mali- Development of SEA effectiveness assessment framework for SEAs developed in the

framework of EC development cooperation- Representation of DG Aidco in OECD DAC SEA Task Team- Input into review of OECD DAC SEA Advisory Notes on: post-conflict situations;

ecosystem services; and climate change- Preparation of EIA Good Practice note for DG Aidco- Review and of various ToR for environmental integration projects- Key author of the Guidelines for Environmental Integration in EC Development Co-

operation (2007, 2009)- Review of degree of environmental integration into Country Strategy Papers and

National Indicative Programmes- Design of an analytical framework for the assessment of the degree of environmental

integration into EC CSPs and NIPs- Technical Assistance to the EC in the design and review of the SEA for the Maldives’

Regional Development Plan, and assessment of the pilot experience- Assessment of the degree of environmental integration into the “Evaluation of the

Multifunctional Role of the Sugarcane Cluster and Validation of the 2006-2015 ActionPlan” report in the context of Mauritius’ sugar reform adaptation strategy

- Assistance in the preparation of ToR for SEAs and Country Environmental Profiles

12/2007-

02/2009Honduras

GTZ. Mr Axel [email protected]

Tel. +49.228.985.3328

SEA Specialistand trainer

Technical Assistance and Training on Strategic Environmental Assessment forMunicipal planning processes (Planes de Desarrollo Municipal) in municipalities of Olanchoand Choluteca. Undertaken for GTZ and the Government of Honduras.

08-11/2007

SouthWestIndianOcean

EC / Indian Ocean Commission/ AGRER. Mr Frank Feys

[email protected] specialist

Sustainable development of coastal tourism in the South West Indian Ocean(Mauritius, Comoros, Seychelles, Madagascar, Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar): StrategicEnvironmental Assessment at National and Regional Levels project. Assessment ofimpacts of tourism on the environment at national and regional level, input into preparationof the “Regional Strategic Action Plan for Coastal Ecotourism Development in the SouthWestern Indian Ocean”, and preparation of model terms of reference for national andregional SEAs of ecotourism development projects.

02-05/2005

VenezuelaIFC / ECA S.A. Mr Agustí Seguer

[email protected] Leader

Review of the Environmental, Health & Safety and Social Management System forVinccler Oil & Gas. Undertaken for the IFC (International Finance Corporation).

09/2004–

12/2005Mexico

Mexican Federal ElectricityCommission / University of

Guadalajara (Mexico)

EIA Specialist /consultant

Environmental Impact Assessment for the “La Yesca” Hydroelectric Dam Project.Advisor to the project management throughout the EIA process, developed the overallmethodology for the EIA and co-ordinated the impact identification, impact evaluationand mitigation measures interdisciplinary workshops and processes.

01/2003-08/2004

MexicoMexican National Research Council Environmental

Expert/SEAStrategic Environmental Assessment and Planning in Mexico. The project explored thepotential to develop an SEA system in Mexico. T

12/2003-

MexicoTractebel

Mr Alejandro De GyvesEnvironmental

ExpertComparative Environmental Risk and Safety Analysis between Natural Gas and LPGas for use in the urban area of Guadalajara, Mexico, 2003-2004. Showed the advantages


06/2004 [email protected] and disadvantages of using each of these sources of energy in a large urban area.

04-05/2003

Bolivia, Peru,Ecuador,Colombia,Venezuela

Development Corporation of theAndes (CAF) / ECA, S.A.

Mr Agustí [email protected]

EnvironmentalExpert

Project for the Enhancement of the Tourism Sector in the Andes Community (DevelopmentCorporation of the Andes). Participated in the Environmental and SustainableDevelopment component of the project, consisting mainly in undertaking stakeholderconsultations and analysis for the definition of Environmental Indicators for sustainabletourism.

11/2002–

02/2004EU

EC / ECA, S.A.Mr Agustí Seguer (ECA)

[email protected]

policy specialist

Evaluation of Approaches to Integrating Sustainability into Community Policies (ECSecretariat General). By improving understand of the way in which the three dimensions ofsustainability (economic, social and environmental) are incorporated into the formulation,objectives, implementation and monitoring of Community policies, this evaluation identifiedthe problems most frequently encountered with a view to identifying working methodsadapted to such strategies in the future.

01/2003-

10/2003Mexico

Municipality of Zapopan (Mexico)and University of Guadalajara

Dr Juan [email protected]

EnvironmentalAssessment

Specialist

Environmental Assessment of the Rio Blanco Watershed, Zapopan, Mexico. Participatedin the Environmental Assessment of this important watershed, located in the urban area ofthe city of Guadalajara. The assessment includes the Assessment of the Environmental,social, economic and cultural dimensions.

11/2002-

01/2005Mexico

University of Guadalajara (Mexico)Dr Juan Villalvazo

[email protected]

Researcher inEnvironmental

Policy

Coordinating research projects in environmental policy and management, as well aslecturing in environmental policy planning and management to BSc, MSc and PhD students.

01-12/2002

EU-wideEC / ECA, S.A.

Mr Agustí [email protected]

Team Leader /Land Use Expert

Land Use: Exploring the Scope for Action at the EU Level related to land use in theframework of the preparation of a Communication on Planning and Environment to beissued by DG ENV. Performed a comprehensive assessment of current mechanisms forland use planning across the EU in different sectors and at different decision-making levels.Made recommendations to the EC on how to promote more sustainable land use planningand management.

08/2001-

01/2004Kazakhstan

EC / ECA, S.A. and Bureau VeritasMr David Fardel (BV)

[email protected]. +7(095)937.5777

Team Leader(environmental

and safety policyadvice work

package)

Support to the Oil and Gas Production and Transportation Sectors of the Republic ofKazakhstan. Tacis. Provided (1) technical assistance to the Government of Kazakhstan forthe improvement of national regulations, standards and procedures on safety andenvironment for offshore upstream activities and pipeline operations, (2) assistance to thenational companies KazTransOil and KazTransGas on pipeline maintenance operations and(3) assistance for the preparation of the legal framework for the establishment of anindependent oil and oil products certification system in Kazakhstan.

2000-2001

EU andformer

accessioncountries

EC / ECA, S.A. and CassiopeeMr Patrick O’Sullivan (Cassiopee)

EIA and publicparticipation

specialist

Study on the Current Regulatory Status in the EU Member States and the ApplicantCountries Concerning Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioningof Nuclear Installations. Reviewed the current legislative status in all Member States andApplicant Countries with regards to the EIA process for the decommissioning of nuclearinstallations (NPP), and prepared Guidelines for NPP decommissioning EIAs.

2000-2001

EU andformer

accessioncountries

EC / ECA, S.A and ICON (UK)Mr William Sheate (ICON)

[email protected] Specialist

SEA and the Integration of the Environment in Strategic Decision Making. Reviewedthe current integration mechanisms and SEA procedures in all Member States (and somenon-EU countries) in order to define a European strategy for the integration of theenvironment in decision-making on policies, plans and programmes.

2000 Colombia UNDP / ECA, S.A.Environmental

Specialist

Culture of No-Rubbish and Solid Waste Management. Provided TA to Bogota'senvironmental authority in the definition and implementation of their Urban WasteManagement Programme.

01- EU European Commission (DG Team Leader Preparation of Guidelines for the Evaluation of Environmental Claims according to


12/2000 SANCO) / ECA, S.A. EnvironmentalLegislation Expert

International Standard ISO 14021:1999.

04-06/2000

EU-wideEuropean Commission (DG ENV)

/ ICON (UK)Consultant

Pollutants in Urban Wastewater and Sewage Sludge Study. Undertook a legislativereview and identification of current- and best-practices with regards to urban wastewaterand sewage sludge management in Spain and Portugal.

06/1999-

11/2002General ECA, S.A. (Spain)

Head ofInternational

EnvironmentalConsultancy

Project management and team leader for international environmental consultancyprojects, mainly under contracts for donor agencies and the European Commission.Responsibilities included writing proposals, project management, acting as Team Leader ofspecific projects, and client liaison.

03-06/1997

SwitzerlandUnited Nations EconomicCommission for Europe

InternAssistance to the Secretariat during the negotiations for the Aarhus Convention on accessto environmental information, public participation in environmental decision making andaccess to justice in environmental matters.

09/1995-

12/1998

Hungaryand Spain Imperial College (UK)

Mr William [email protected]

Tel. +44(0)2074078700

EIA ResearcherA theoretical-empirical analysis framework for public participation in EIA. Researchproject developed a theoretical analytical framework for public participation in EIA, focusingon Central and Eastern Europe and the EU and with case studies in Hungary and Spain.

06-08/1995

CzechRepublic,Romania

EIA ResearcherEIA in Central and Eastern Europe, analysis of the Czech and Romanian cases. This projectexplored early development of EIA legislation in the Czech Republic and Romania,compared to the EU (especially in the UK and Spain).

01-04/1999

SpainCentre for Entrepreneurial

InitiativesConsultant

Centre for Entrepreneurial Initiatives and Local Government of Santa Margarida i ElsMonjos, Spain. Feasibility Study for the establishment of an industrial waste managementcompany.

10/1992-

06/1994

Mexico(Chapala)

Mexican Institute for WaterTechnology (IMTA)

Consultant

Mexican Institute for Water Technology (IMTA). Water Weed Control Programme forLake Chapala (Mexico). A programme was developed for the control of water weedsthrough an analysis of alternatives (physical and chemical methods). Responsible for themodelling of water weed growth under the different control alternatives.

10/1992-

09/1994Mexico

Various. Dr Gualberto Limó[email protected]

ConsultantReview of Wastewater Treatment Plant Designs in Tendering Procedures. Participatedin the review of urban wastewater treatment plant designs for different local authorities, as atechnical quality control of technical proposals submitted during tendering procedures.

15. Others: Publications (selected): PALERM, J; Ledant, JP and Brinn, P (2007) Environmental Integration in EC Development Co-operation Multi-Annual Programming, experiences in the use of

Country Environmental Profiles, IAPA, 25(3). European Commission (2009) Guidelines on environmental Integration in EC Development Co-operation, prepared by the EC Helpdesk Environment. Also

available in French and Spanish. (Key author). Bond, A.; PALERM, J.; and Haigh, P. (2004) Public Participation in EIA of Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Projects: a Case Study Analysis. Environmental

Impact Assessment Review, 24(6): 617-641. Dagg, S.; Achemann, R. and PALERM, J. (2003) Guest Editorial: The Changing Processes of Public and Stakeholder Participation in Response to Diverse and

Dynamic Contexts, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(3). Sheate, W.; Dagg, S.; Richardson, J.; Aschemann, R.; PALERM, J. and Steen, U. (2003) Integrating the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making:

Conceptualising Policy SEA. European Environment, 13: 1-18. PALERM, J. (2000) An Empirical-Theoretical Analysis Framework for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 43(5): 581-600. PALERM, J. (1999) Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: examining the Aarhus Convention, Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and

Management, 1(2): 229-244.

Consultancy for the preparation of the Country Environment Profile of the Kingdom of Lesotho

CURRICULUM VITAE

Surname: MAKHOALIBEFirst Name: Sechocha

Date of Birth: 4th November, 1942Nationality: LesothoResidence: Lesotho

Areas of Specialisation:

Hydrology and hydrometeorological assessment, evaluation and analysis;

Water resources engineering, water resources planning, development andmanagement; and

Environmental management of natural and water resources.

Education:

1966-1970: B.Sc. (Hons) in Earth Sciences (Hydrology, Meteorology, Soil Sciences,Geology, Physical Geography), Uppsala, Sweden.

1973-1976: Diploma in Water Sciences and Water Resources Engineering; KelseyInstitute, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Other Specialist Training:

January 1978: “Basics in Finance” Institute of Development and Management (IDM),Maseru, Lesotho.

April-May 1979: “Applications of Remote Sensing Technology to Hydrology andWater Resources Engineering”, Remote Sensing Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

January-April 1980: “Computer Applications to Water Resources Engineering”,Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.

April-May 1981: “Regionalising and Transferring of Hydrological Variables”, Instituteof Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.

June-September, 1982: “Water Resources Engineering”, Jaroslav Cerni, InstituteforDevelopment of Water Resources, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

May-July, 1983: “Training of Management Educators”, Institute of DevelopmentManagement, Gaborone, Botswana.

June-September 1988: ‘Hydrological Forecasting’, University of California, Davis,USA.

June 1995: “Applications of Economic Principles and Instruments in the IntegratedManagement of Freshwater Resources” UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

CONSORTIUMSAFEGE FWC-Lot 6


June-October 1995: “Computer Technology Applications” CSN, Maseru, Lesotho.

December, 1995: “Auto-Cad LT 2D Design”, ACAD Centre Africa, Maseru, Lesotho

May 2002: “Financial Management and Disbursement in World Bank – FinancialProjects” Maseru, Lesotho.

June 2009: “International Water Law”, Pretoria, South Africa.

Career Development and Experience Record:

- August 2009 to present: Management Team

A member and one directors of GWC Consulting Engineers involved in projectssupervision and coordination activities with the stakeholders and the clients. Liaisingwith project affected people. Projects managing.

- July 2006 to July 2009: Regional Project Manager

This period covers the assignment on the Orange-Senqu RIVER Basin Commission(ORASECOM) program under the French Global Environment Facility (FGEF) funding. SixActivities were funded and the TORs were prepared, advertisements were issued,interviews were held, contracts were prepared. Consultants were supervised, andprogress reports were made for the client and the financier. Work-shopping forstakeholders and the local community authorities in the four riparian states of theOrange-Senqu river. Consistent consultations were held with other cooperating partnersprograms under the ORASECOM program of action, such as GTZ, UNOPS, EU, DFID.

- March 2004 to July 2009: Manager GWC Consulting Engineers

In this assignment, involvement was in supervising construction projects in the watersupply infrastructure, preparation of TORs, feasibility studies, and contract negotiationswith contractors on behalf of the client.

Reconnaissance project surveys towards pre-feasibility studies.

Preparation of the environmental impact assessment reports including environmentalmanagement plan.

- July 1999 to October, 2003: Head of Lesotho Water and Sewerage Authority(WASA)

During the period, activities have been those of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of theLesotho Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA). These included day-to-dayadministration, and management of the Authority’s resources; planning and developingmanagement policies and strategies for all the 17 urban centers in Lesotho; projectconceptualization and proposals and their presentations to the Board of Directors of the


Authority, to the Ministry of Development Planning for Government of Lesotho (GOL)back-up, and final presentation to the donors and financiers such as the World Bank,European Union, Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA), OPEC FUND,etc.

The responsibilities entailed water security – in raw water sources; potable watersupplies; sanitation and sewerage services for urban population in seven towns.Supervision of engineering, operational, economic/financial, and corporate servicessenior personnel; coordination of the Authority’s regional and international obligations;and developing the mission to improve and elevate the image of the Authority inrespect of its customers and the consumers of its products – potable water and safesanitation for the environment.

Initiatives have been started and prepared for putting in place mechanisms to elevatethe Authority to perform as a commercial agency while caring for the social andenvironmental aspects of water. Public-Private Partnerships and private sectorparticipation strategies have been formulated; including the formulation of Vision 2020on water supply and sanitation services, and the promulgation of the HIV/AIDS policy forthe Authority.

International consultants and contractors have been screened, evaluated andnegotiated with on conducting several studies and implementation of projects financedand/or co-financed by the Government, the World Bank, BADEA, EU and OPEC Fund inthe potable water supply and sanitation services. Twinning agreements andcooperation were concluded with international agencies (Wessex Water – UK) andregional ones (Umgeni Water and Bloem Water).

Initial negotiations on the Lesotho Lowlands Water Supply Study (LLWSS) betweenLesotho and South Africa as joint venture were attended. Metolong Dam feasibilitystudy was agreed upon as a fast-tracked component of LLWSS.

Participated in the review by Lesotho of the World Commission on Dams report and itsimplications to Lesotho in the development and management of her available waterresources. Participated in drawing up terms of reference and preparation of aidememoirs with the World Bank on Lesotho Water Sector Improvement Projectcomponent on Maseru Bulk Water Supply Augmentation.

Involved in the review and evaluation of the consultancy services proposal for theformulation and establishment of water sector regulator or a single regulator for bothenergy and water sectors.


1996-1999: Head of SADC – Water Sector

As the first Chief Engineer/Sector Coordinator of the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity Water Sector (SADC –Water Sector) programs and project proposals wereprepared and submitted to Sub-Committees of officials and Ministerial Committee forreview and final presentation to the Council of Ministers as SADC-Water Sectorpolicy/activities for approval by Heads of State and Government.

Annual SADC Heads of State, Council of Ministers and Water Sector Ministers meetingsand conferences were attended in order to back up presentations on the SADC WaterSector programs and projects.

Programs were formulated and projects dossiers were prepared for presentation to thedonors on regional basis and on country specifics. Long term region action plans(Regional Strategic Action Plans) were prepared including the legal aspects on theregional aspirations – The Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the SADC Region.

Several national, regional and international seminars, conferences and workshops werearranged, coordinated, supervised and attended in popularizing the Water Sector(SADC) and for the formulation and conclusion of the SADC – Water Sector Action Planwhich contained 31 projects. Round Table Conference was organized and held inGeneva, December, 1998 for international cooperating partners for this RegionalStrategic Action Plan (RSAP).

International and regional experts were screened, interviewed and recruited for theimplementation of funded projects and studies for the SADC – Water Sector; andregional institutions/agencies were negotiated with to assist/implementprojects/activities on behalf of the SADC-Water Sector. Assistance was also given to theSADC Secretariat in the implementation of SADC Programme of Action. Seminars,workshops etc. were held for co-operating partners and stakeholders on SADC-WaterSector program and projects.

Negotiations were undertaken for multi-donor joint funding of several SADC-WaterSector programs and projects. Conflict resolution strategies were put in place for theshared watercourse systems in the SADC region. These included the virtual waterprinciples and water policy, and hydro-politics.

Participated in the review of Water Sector chapter for the production and publication ofLesotho’s National Report on Climate Change, First National Communication to theConference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.


1983-1996: Head of Department of Water Affairs

The responsibilities during the period were varied and numerous; but over-arching onewas the establishment and development of the institutional agency responsibility in thewater resources management of Lesotho – Department of Water Affairs.

The detailed activities included:

Representing Government of Lesotho in international and regional forums onwater resources issues, including International Conference on Water andEnvironment (ICWE) Dublin, Ireland. The recommendations are included inAgenda 21, known as Dublin Principles on Freshwater. A member of Lesothodelegation to the Agenda-21 Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992

Development of the department and clarification on its activities in waterresources planning, development and management, development of theterms of references for the “Water Resources Management: Policy andStrategies (WRMPS)” study by 32 consultants from TAMS of New York andfrom Sechaba, and Groundwater Consultants, both of Maseru.

Programs and projects formulation on water resources; nationally andregionally.

Prepared for National Environmental Secretariat a critical review on theoutline of a chapter on water resources and wetlands for State ofEnvironment (SOE) book and programme of action.

Supervision and evaluation of international consultants on water projects,including supervision of four mini-hydropower plants.

Preparation of background paper for workshops held by NationalEnvironment Secretariat on natural resources (water) and desertification.

Participated in several congresses of the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) as Chief Delegate (1987) and as hydrological adviser to LesothoPermanent Representative with WMO.

Participation in regional Workshops on Water Resources Challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa organised by the World Bank; and presentation of a country(Lesotho) situation paper.

A member of SADC Water Resources Technical Committee (WRTC) which issupervising the water programmes and projects for the region (SADC).

Participated fully in the formulation of draft of the present “Protocol onShared Watercourse Systems in the SADC Region.”

Guided consultants on the production of the first hydrogeological map ofLesotho under Italian Government technical assistance.

Organised a workshop for SADC-ELMS on hydrogeological mapping in SADCmember States.

Participation in the drawing up of Lesotho’s National Environmental ActionPlan (NEAP) including the drafting of NEAP organs and Structures, NationalEnvironmental Secretariat and other bodies within NEAP.


Participated in the workshop preparing Lesotho’s contribution paper to theUN Conference on Environment and Development. Drafted water section ofthis workshop’s paper.

Participated, as a member of Lesotho Delegation to the Preparatory Meetingof UN Conference on Environment and Development, including thepreparatory negotiations for the Convention to Combat Drought andDesertification.

Participated in the Task Force formulating the present Disaster ManagementAuthority.

Active participation in meetings and workshops shaping the water supplypolicies in Lesotho.

Drafting the first version on the term of reference (TOR) for the new WaterSector of SADC.

Evaluations of the reports and studies concerning water resources of Lesothoin relation to both urban and rural water supplies; and advising concernedagencies and organisations accordingly on hydrology, water and environmentaspects.

Implementing engineering contractual agreements between Government ofLesotho and contractors/consultants.

Assessing, approving and passing consultants and contractors’ certificates forpayment on project supervised by the department.

Assessing the water uses and water availability in Lesotho; including acritique on all reports/studies on water supply to the towns/urban/peri-urban/rural areas on Lesotho.

Participation in the stakeholders workshops and seminars on the OrangeRiver Replanning Studies (ORRS) organized by DWAF-RSA, as alternatives toLesotho Highlands Water Project Scheme in the future development of theOrange-Senqu River Basin system, including sub-basin transfers such asLower Orange to the Vaal as well as from other river basins

Designing and running three-month courses for hydrological technicians inthe Department of Water Affairs (Lesotho) for a period of three years.

Participated as resource person on training workshop for Mozambicans onenvironmental monitoring organised by SADC-Environment and LandManagement Sector (ELMS), and run by professors from Uppsala University,Sweden.

Participation in the reconnaissance surveys and dam sites identification forLesotho Lowlands Water Resources development.

Participation in the site selection for the construction of three Crump weirson Malibamat’so, Paray, Senqunyane, and Senqu rivers. These Crump weirswere built by DWA (RSA) for the verification of historical hydrological data ascollected by DWA (Lesotho) for Katse, Mohale, and Ntoahae damsrespectively. .

Participation in the panel of experts on the Zambezi River Basin Action Plan(ZACPLAN).


Participated in data collection for projects implementing ZACPLAN, includingthe editing of the reports on ZACPLAN project.

Negotiation with cooperating partners for the funding of SADC projects in thewater sector programmes.

Identification of possible dam sites for bulk water supply for the towns ofLesotho including growth centres and rural villages as multi-purpose dams.

Supervision of professionals in the Department of Water Affairs(hydrologists, meteorologists, engineers, environmentalists, andhydrogeologists).

Negotiating donor (JICA) funding for the project on potable water suppliesand sanitation facilities to the primary schools in the lowlands of Lesotho.

1978-1983:

PRINCIPAL HYDROLOGIST responsible for the day-to-day administration andactivities of the Department of Hydrological & Meteorological Services, as headof the department.

Continued to have a principal active role in the hydrometric network design ofLesotho, river flow measuring stations including the expansion of suspendedsediment transport sampling and monitoring network; and the initiation of waterquality monitoring of the Caledon river at the Maseru reach of the river.Conducted hydrological studies and ran two successive sets of training coursesfor hydrological technicians to improve their academic and level of hydrologicunderstanding, especially in the field of hydrometry, general hydrology andsediment sampling. Data collection, analysis, assessment, evaluation andinterpretation including publication (3rd Hydrological Year Book) remained themajor routine activities; including on-the-job training and supervision ofprofessional staff.

Representing Lesotho internationally and regionally on water issues, includingbeing a member of Lesotho’s 1978 delegation to Cape Town to re-initiate thebilateral consultations and negotiations on the Lesotho Highlands WaterScheme.

Restructuring Department of Hydrological & Meteorological Services to thepresent Department of Water Affairs with activities decentralised to the regionaloffices to meet the data users needs as well as improving the quality of data dueto high frequency of visits to river stations hence false operations by recordersdetected in time.

Designed human resources development of the department’s fields ofspecialization (meteorology, hydrology, hydrogeology, water quality, waterresources engineering).


1976-1977:

HYDROLOGIST: As hydrological engineer was responsible for the planning ofdata collection, computation and the calibration of hydrometric stations andsmall hydraulic structures (gauging weirs). Initiated the scientific collection ofsediment transport data in Lesotho. Involved in the design of small hydraulicstructures including the network design. Supplying river flow forecasting to thewater users for effective operation of water supplies schemes.

1970-1973:

SENIOR HYDROLOGICAL SURVEYOR involved in the field data collection (streamgauging), maintenance of hydrometric stations, repair of instrumentation andsupervision of hydrological data collection and processing and maintenance ofmeteorological instruments and stations.Field sampling of suspended sediment using point-sampling, depth-integratingsampling, and bucket (grab) methods including laboratory analysis of thesamples, and the laboratory results and data interpretations.

OTHER ACTIVITIES/RESPONSIBILITIES:

Hydrological Adviser to Permanent Representative of Lesotho with WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO); since 1979 when Lesotho became amember of WMO; till 1990.

Secretary, National Committee for international Hydrological Programme ofUNESCO, (1984-Now).

Chairman (1980-1984) of the Standing Committee for Hydrology of SouthernAfrican Regional Commission for Conservation and Utilisation of Soil(SARCCUS).

Vice-chairman (1988-90) of Standing Committee for Hydrology of SARCCUS.

Chairman of Steering Committee on Water Resources Management: Policyand Strategies (WRMPS) study for Lesotho.

President, 1996/97, of Lesotho Architects, Engineers and SurveyorsAssociation.

Treasurer of Africa Division of International Association of HydraulicResearch; 1995.


MEMBERSHIP:

South African National Committee for the International Association ofHydrological Sciences.

South African Geographical Society.

Lesotho Architects, Engineers and Surveyors Association.

International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research.

PROJECTS

The following projects and studies were managed during the careerdevelopment:

A. WASA

A.1 Design and Construction of Water Supply Pipeline from LesothoSun Reservoir to Service Reservoir at Thetsane Industrial Estate –GOL funding.

A.2 Design and Construction Service Reservoir at Thetsane IndustrialEstate – GOL funding.

A.3 Construction of 600mm force main from Maseru WaterTreatment Plant to Service Reservoir at Lesotho Sun – BADEAfunds.

A.4 13 Towns Sanitation Project - KfW (Germany) funding.A.5 Maseru Peri-Urban Water Supply Project – BADEA funds.A.6 Thetsane Industrial Estate Sewerline – GOL .A.7 Terms of Reference for Five Towns Water Supply and Sanitation

Feasibility Study – BADEAA.8 Six Towns Water Supply (Maputsoe, T.Y., Mapoteng, Roma,

Morija, Quthing) – EU financing.A.9 Lesotho Water Sector Reform Project – Maseru Water Supply

Augmentation – World Bank financing.

B. SADC WATER SECTOR

B.1 Hydrological Cycle Observing Systems in the SADC Region fundedby SIDA (Sweden).

B.2 Zambesi River Basin Action Plan (ZACPLAN) on integrated waterresources management.

B.3 Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the SADC Region,SIDA funds.

B.4 Regional Strategic Action Plan for integrated water resourcesdevelopment in the SADC countries – UNDP funding.


C. DWA (Lesotho)

C.1 Hydrometric Network Expansion – Government of Lesotho (GOL)funding.C.2 Meteorological Network Expansion and Assessment – funding

WMO/UNDP.C.3 Hydrogeological Mapping of Lesotho – Italian funds.C.4 Water Supply to Lowlands Primary Schools – Japanese funds.C.5 Water Resources Management: Policy and Strategies – GOL.C.6 Tlokoeng and Tsoelike Mini-Hydropower Plants – French funding.C.7 Semonkong and Mants’onyane Mini-Hydropower Plants – NORAD

funding.C.8 Oxbow Hydropower Development – Feasibility Study – GOL.

D. ORASECOM Program

D.1 Six Activities were supervised under the French Global EnvironmentalFacility (FGEF).

E. GWC CONSULTING ENGINEERS:

E.1 Feasibility studies were undertaken, contract dossiers were prepared,and contractors were supervised on several projects in the water sector.E.2 Environmental studies and activities including preparation of EMP wereundertaken.


Appendix 11: ToR for the CEP

1

SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE

Preparation of the Country Environment Profile of the Kingdom of Lesotho

FWC BENEFICIARIES 2009 – 2011/279247/1 LOT No. 6 : Environment

EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi

1. BACKGROUND Lesotho is a small, mountainous, land-locked country with only limited economic resources. Historically, the Basotho people have provided a substantial element of the labour force in the South African mining industry and migrant miner remittances have become a significant factor in the national economy. However, with the growing uncertainty in the South African mining industry and with relative poverty becoming an increasing problem, the Government of Lesotho has determined that greater emphasis must be given to a strategy that will generate economic growth. Climate change is mainstreamed in Lesotho's National Strategic Development Plan 2012-2016, currently under preparation, and the NSDP puts a clear focus on green growth as a driver for Lesotho's economy. National environmental outlook Environmental degradation in Lesotho, if not controlled, will see Lesotho in the next years with declining biological diversity (Lesotho has unique habitats such as mountain wetlands and sandstone cliffs which support high level of plant endemism [more than 500 species]), loss of cultural heritage, declining water and air quality, encroachment of settlements into productive agricultural land and declining ecosystem services. The HIV/AIDS scourge and the increasing levels of poverty as a result of climatic variability will reduce economic growth and leave many people impoverished. The current trends indicate an unstable and unsustainable system characterised by loss of productivity and ongoing environmental degradation. The responses of society to reverse this state of affairs show little success and are marked by very poor performance levels. If the negative trends are not curbed or reversed and the positive ones reinforced, the future of the Lesotho’s environment is gloomy. However, the resilience shown by the country, the level of adaptation of innovative land management methods among the Basotho over the years, and the current realisation of several unsustainable approaches to development provide hope for a better future, if recommended strategies for sustainable development are implemented efficiently. The negative impacts can be mitigated by interventions such as climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, enforcement of environmental standards, sound land use practices, improved food security and self-sufficiency through, for example, the implementation of an irrigation policy, intensive HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns, the infusion of appropriate low-input technologies and alternative community-based natural resource management activities as well as the protection of important cultural and historical sites. National environmental policies Lesotho prepared a comprehensive National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) that attempted to incorporate environmental issues into the country’s economic development and to co-ordinate the country’s environmental challenges. The NEAP did not become effective, however, due to the absence of an appropriate institutional mechanism to co-ordinate environmental programmes and activities. In 1994, Lesotho formulated a National Action

2

Plan to implement Agenda 21 under the auspices of a National Environment Secretariat (NES). The NES was tasked to co-ordinate the implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP) and it was instrumental in formulating the National Environment Policy (NEP), which harmonised the programmes of both the NEAP and the NEP. Lesotho has enacted an umbrella environment law (the Environment Act 2001) but some sections have not yet come into operation. Once gazetted, the law will provide for the management of the environmental and natural resources of the country. The law proposes the transformation of the NES into a statutory body with perpetual succession, the Lesotho Environmental Authority. Trans-boundary environmental policies There are specific treaties and agreements relevant to water resources:

• The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) Treaty between the Governments of Lesotho and South Africa (1987).

• The Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region (1995).

• The Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region (2000).

Environmental reports to international agencies • 1989 – National Environmental Action Plan (Lesotho). • 1998 – State of the Environment in Lesotho. • 1998 – Biodiversity Strategy and Desertification (Lesotho). • 1998 – National Action Plan (Lesotho). • 1998 – National Environment Policy. • 1999 – National Report on Desertification (Lesotho). • 2000 – Lesotho Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. • 2001 – Environment Act (to be enforced). • 2002 – Second State of the Environment Report (Lesotho). 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

Objective The main objective of the Country Environmental Profile (CEP) is to identify and assess environmental issues to be considered during the preparation of a Country Strategy Paper, which will directly or indirectly influence EC cooperation with the country for several years to come. The conclusions will also be used by Ireland, the only resident EU member state, to inform their own programming exercise. The Country Environmental Profile will provide decision makers in the partner country and in the European Commission with clear information on the key environmental challenges, in particular, those resulting from increasing climate variability and climate change. It will also analyse the current policy, legislative and institutional framework and the strategies and programmes (including those of the EC and other donors) designed to address them. This information will ensure that the EC cooperation strategies systematically integrate environmental and climate change considerations into the selection of focal sectors and

3

cooperation objectives/strategies, and also establish the necessary environment safeguards for all cooperation activities undertaken in the country. The profile will constitute an important source of baseline information and contribute to focusing political dialogue and cooperation with the country on key areas of concern including sustainable development as well as raising awareness among policy makers. Water and sanitation will continue to be the main focal area of the future CSP and this sector should be given special attention. Results The profile will deliver the following results:

� an assessment of the state of the environment in Lesotho and key environmental factors and trends, including those related to climate, influencing the country’s sustainable development and stability;

� an assessment of national environmental policy and legislation, institutional structures and capacity, and the involvement of civil society in environmental issues;

� an assessment of available analysis on the impact of increasing climate variability and climate change on different sectors and the strategies and processes in place or under development to respond to them – in particular the water and sanitation sector and disaster risk reduction including food security/production;

� recommendations and, as far as possible, guidelines or criteria for mainstreaming environmental concerns particularly those concerning adaptation to increasing climate variability and climate change in cooperation areas particularly water and sanitation and disaster risk reduction;

� recommendations for mainstreaming environmental and climate change issues which could affect governance structures and public financial management in Lesotho.

All recommendations should support the preparation of the Country Strategy Paper/National Indicative Programme and include guidelines or criteria to be used for environmental mainstreaming in subsequent phases of the cycle of operations.

Issues to be addressed The following issues should be assessed using existing sources of information and key stakeholder perspectives. It is not expected that the preparation of the Profile will involve the collection of original environmental data.

1. State of the environment, trends and pressures a) This chapter should identify the state and trends of key environmental resources or components in the country, including (as relevant to Lesotho), but not necessarily limited to: Themes

Aspects

Land � Soil erosion and degradation � Land use, arable land, losses due to urbanisation or infrastructure

building

Water

� Water regime � Groundwater � Water quality

Air quality � Urban air quality

4

� Indoor air quality

Forest, vegetation, ecosystems

� Forest cover and volume � Pastureland � State of particular ecosystems (e.g. if none any specific ecosystems

could be mentioned here )

Biodiversity, wildlife

� Local status of globally threatened species/habitats � Alien invasive species � Fish stocks � Species with special value

Mineral resources and geology

� Mineral resources � Geological risks (seismic, volcanic and related risks)

Landscape � Aesthetic and cultural value of landscape

Living conditions in human settlements

� Air and water quality � Sanitation � Slums � Health � Vulnerability to disasters

Climate trends

� Temperature � Precipitation � Frequency of extreme weather events, natural climate-related

disasters

b) Pressures on the environment explaining the main negative trends should be identified, as well as pressures contributing to global environmental problems, including (as relevant to Lesotho), but not necessarily limited to: Environmental Pressure

Possible aspects to consider

Mining, extraction of hydrocarbons

Extraction, processing and transport of minerals and hydrocarbons, and the resulting pollution and waste

Water use and management

� Water extraction (surface and groundwater) � Wastewater discharges, water treatment � Water use � Virtual water flows (water footprint of Lesotho's import/exports)* � Water governance matrix, roles of different actors and sharing of

water resources, national and supra national issues.

Land use and management

Land use planning including strategic environmental implications Land governance matrix, roles of actors and sharing of land resources, national and supra national issues

5

Forest exploitation, hunting, fisheries, biodiversity

� Forest product extraction � Forest and fisheries management practices � Hunting and fishing activities, poaching � Use of non-timber forest products � Fires � Introduction of alien species

Livestock � Overgrazing � Rangeland management, use of fire, water management � Livestock waste and pollution management

Agriculture

� Extension of agricultural land � Shifting cultivation � Intensification � Irrigation and water use � Pest control � Agricultural practices, soil management � Agricultural waste and pollution management

Energy supply and use

� Sources of energy � Supply- and generation-related waste and emissions � Energy consumption and associated emissions � Energy efficiency

GHG emissions Emissions of main GHG and sources

Urbanisation, infrastructure and industry

� Urban growth and sprawl, urban planning � Dams, roads, major infrastructure � Polluting industries, tourism

Transport � Transport of goods � Transport of people

Waste disposal and management

� Waste production � Waste management � Public behaviour and practices, existing systems � Hazardous waste management

* Virtual water content: the virtual water content of a product is the volume of freshwater used to produce the product. Data on this exists for Lesotho. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/VirtualWater_article_DZDR.pdf, http://www.waterfootprint.org As far as possible the driving forces influencing these pressures should be identified, such as economic incentives, demographic pressure, access rights to natural resources and land tenure systems. Environmental trends should be assessed with regard to their social and economic impact, including:

� any decline in economic production or productivity (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries);

� threats to human health;

6

� human exposure to environmental disasters (e.g. floods, drought); � conflicts and security issues; � impact on poverty, differentiated impact on women and men, impact on vulnerable

groups (including children and indigenous peoples); � sustainability of resource use;

The concluding paragraphs of this section should summarise the main problems identified, described in terms of situations or trends that are undesirable due to their current socio-economic consequences (e.g. falling productivity, health problems, natural risks, social crises, conflicts), their future consequences (e.g. decline in natural resources, cumulative pollution) or their contribution to global environmental problems. The main links between the environment and human development (in its multiple dimensions: income, consumption, health, security, vulnerability …) should be highlighted, possibly in the form of a matrix or ‘problem tree’. As appropriate, the consultant should refer to environmental indicators that could be used for monitoring changes in the studied country. To the extent that data are available, trends in MDG 7 indicators should be provided; trends in additional indicators related to country-specific environmental issues can also be provided, as available, to highlight those that are significant. If appropriate, the information could be organised according to eco-geographical subdivisions with the scale (regional, national, local) of the issues indicated.

2. Environmental Policy. Legislation and Institutions A brief description and review should be provided of the main government responses to deal with environmental problems. This section should address the strengths and weaknesses of the following aspects as relevant to Lesotho, but not necessarily limited to: Aspects

Examples of Issues to consider

Policies

� Existence of national policies, strategies and action plans for the environment, including possible National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) and/or National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP).

� Policy response to global issues, sustainability issues (depletion of natural resources), and specific environmental issues identified above.

� Consistency between policies. � Policies on gender and environment. � Important measures taken by the government to solve environmental concerns

and types of policy instruments used for implementation � Effectiveness in achieving targets

Regulatory framework, including Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) legislation

� Ratification status and implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements such as those concerning climate change, biodiversity and desertification (with reference to any official plans, programmes, communications or reports issued in the context of these conventions).

� Adequacy of (current and in preparation) environmental legislation, including land tenure and land reform, access rights to natural resources, management of natural resources, requirements for environmental assessment such as for EIA and SEA, pollution control, development control.

� Provision and procedures for public participation in environmental issues. � Effectiveness of legislation enforcement. � Use of other (non-legislative) instruments, e.g. ‘green budgeting’, environmental

7

fiscal reform and market-based mechanisms, voluntary schemes (e.g. environmental management systems, environmental labelling, industry-government agreements).

� Potential impact of non-environmental legislation

Institutions with environmental responsibilities

� Identity, number and quality of institutions involved in policy making, legislation, planning, environmental protection, monitoring and enforcement.

� Level of coordination and decentralisation. � Strength and capacity of individual institutions. � Influence on other institutions. � Good governance practices. � Capabilities, means, functioning of environmental services. � Major NGOs, institutes or other organisations involved in environmental

management or policy.

Financial Arrangements

� Financial resource envelope of institutions mentioned above � Funding modalities available/in use � Potential sources of funding � Existing financing gaps

Public participation

� Transparency and access to environmental information. � Role of NGOs and civil society in environmental decision making. � Effective participation. � Participation by women and traditionally less represented groups. � Access to justice in environmental matters

Environmental services and infrastructure

� Protected areas: number, areas, relevance, effectiveness of protection. � Sanitation and waste treatment infrastructure. � Disaster risk reduction systems. � Emergency response mechanisms

Environmental monitoring system

� Relevance of selected indicators (with reference to MDG7). � Measurement of the indicators: periodicity, reliability. � Integration in the general development indicators

3. Implications of climate change The CEP report should include an overall estimation of both vulnerability (identification of vulnerability factors) and capacity to respond to the consequences of climate variability and change. Policies should be reviewed (e.g. climate-resilient development strategies, national adaptation programmes, low carbon development strategies, agricultural and food production policies and trade related policies), together with their institutional components. Sources of information may include National Communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and for the least developed countries National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Existing national or sub-regional studies on the expected effects of climate change should be considered including proposed responses, which may include technical, policy and institutional components. This section of the report will highlight the effects of climate change in exacerbating existing pressures or impacts and the linkages between environmental degradation (ecosystem services) and vulnerability, with a focus on the poorest and most exposed social groups. The overall implications of climate change for focal areas of cooperation should be assessed, in particular the water supply and sanitation sector, disaster risk reduction and governance

8

sector, including any safeguards or need for additional analyses to ensure that investments are adapted to increasing climate variability and predicted climate change effects.

4. Integration of environmental and climate change concerns into the main policies and sectors

The assessment should examine the integration of environment and climate change in the overall development policy and in sector policies, particularly those that might be identified for EC support, taking into account the proposed focal area of water supply and sanitation of the future EDF 11 Country Strategy Paper as well as other options for future co-operation i.e. disaster risk reduction, governance, renewable energy and food security issues. This section should examine whether Strategic Environmental Assessments (or similar assessments) are available for the national development strategy or poverty reduction strategy and for the sectors of interest. If such SEAs exist, they should be briefly described including the main recommendations. The main legislation and institutional arrangements and measures of the sector which address environmental issues, especially those identified in section (a) above, should be examined.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The key aspects of the state and trends of the environment in the country, including policy, regulatory and institutional constraints and challenges, should be identified as clearly as possible. The implications of climate variability and climate change on vulnerability and adaptation strategies should also be included. These key aspects may be presented in a matrix, comparing environmental concerns and the main sectors or policies. Based on a comprehensive assessment of available information and on consultations with stakeholders, conclusions and recommendations should be formulated on how the Commission and the partner government can best address identified environmental challenges (including climate-related ones) in the Country Strategy Paper, taking into account current cooperation and any pre-identified options for future cooperation (water supply and sanitation, disaster risk reduction, governance). Conclusions and recommendations should feed into the country analysis, response strategy and possibly the identification of focal cooperation sectors. They should address (but not necessarily be limited to) the following aspects:

� The need to mainstream climate change and environmental concerns by safeguards and complementary actions in other areas of cooperation, in order to address environmental constraints and opportunities as appropriate. Measures may include, for example, proposals for institutional strengthening and capacity building (including the enhancement of the regulatory framework and enforcement capacities) particularly in relation to environmentally sensitive sector programmes and budget support programmes. Opportunities may include supporting low-carbon development plans and programmes.

� Recommendations to ensure that environmentally sensitive projects and programmes are adapted to increasing climate variability and the anticipated effects of climate change, and can thus deliver sustained developmental benefits. Information gaps preventing this work from being accomplished should be identified.

� Opportunities for coordination on environmental issues with other donors, seeking to achieve complementarities and synergies in order to more effectively deliver

9

development objectives. A checklist for all donor projects in Lesotho should also be developed.

� Proposals for environmentally-relevant indicators to be used in the National Indicative Programme or to be considered during the formulation of cooperation actions. The proposed indicators should be chosen taking account of the availability of data and actual capacity to monitor their evolution. The report should mention whether the proposed indicators are included in the performance assessment framework of national (e.g. poverty reduction strategy) or sectoral strategies/programmes.

Individual recommendations should be clearly articulated and linked to the problems to be solved and grouped according to the sector or institutional stakeholder concerned. The relative priority of the recommendations and an indication of the challenges to their implementation should be given. Any constraints to preparing the profile resulting from limited information should be described. Work Plan The work plan should include but not necessarily be limited to the following activities:

� Consultations with EC country desk officers and other relevant officials, EU Delegation, the national environmental authority and a selection of national and local authorities, officials in the water sector, key international donors, plus key national and international civil society actors operating in the environmental field.

� Review of key documents and reports, including (a list of key documents will be identified by the EU Delegation) relevant national documents (e.g. state of the environment reports); previous Country Environmental Profiles and/or Country Environmental Analysis; the current EC Country Strategy Paper(s); evaluation reports; existing environmental assessments of EC-funded projects and/or sector programmes (particularly those related to potential future focal sectors); environmental literature; environmental policies, legislation and regulations; environmental monitoring data; and environmental performance indicators.

� Field visits to sites of key environmental concern and (if possible) the organisation of a national workshop attended by national authorities, development partners, experts and representatives of civil society with the aim of clarifying and validating key environmental concerns.

� A workshop for up to 20 people towards the end of the contract to present the findings to key government and non-government stakeholders and the EU delegation.

� On the basis of the outlined work plan and time schedule given in these Terms of Reference, a detailed work plan should be proposed.

3. EXPERTISE REQUIRED

The proposed mission shall be conducted by a team of (two) senior experts who should have the following profile:

� Senior Expert I with at least 10 years wide experience in environment/climate issues including institutional/governance aspects; international environmental policies and management; renewable energies; mainstreaming climate change and environmental

10

concerns into policy; environmental assessment techniques (e.g. multi-criteria techniques, scenario analysis, surveying etc.) and experience in rapidly assessing information and developing recommendations. S/he would be the team leader.

� Senior Expert II with at least 10 years experience in the water and sanitation sector

including experience of mainstreaming climate change/environmental/land protection concerns into the sector.

Previous working experience in the country or the region is requested for at least one team member; � Experience in undertaking environmental analyses and preparation of development

programmes is required. � Familiarity of 1 expert with Commission guidance on programming, country

strategies, project cycle management, policy mix and integration of environmental issues into other policy areas is required.

� Previous experience of the second expert of working in the water sector in Lesotho

would be an asset; � Experience of participatory planning processes and gender issues would be an

advantage. English will be the working language and (mother-tongue level fluency) in English is a pre-requisite. The final report must be presented in English.

The contract is a global price and therefore the contract amount will cover all fees and reimbursable expenditures related to the services rendered.

The EU team may be joined by additional consultants financed and contracted by Irish Aid who will work under the EU team leader. 4. LOCATION AND DURATION It is foreseen that the assignment will be carried out during March – July 2012 in Lesotho. Indicative plan of activities and man-days requirements: EXPERT 1 (TL) EXPERT 2 Desk analysis, including briefing to the team leader in Lesotho

10 10

Field phase including travel and workshop

33 33

Report finalisation (draft) 3 3 Debriefing in Lesotho 1 1 Final report 3 3 Total days 50 50

11

The Commission may request further assistance from the consultants as a follow up this mission and as part of further preparations for the CSP 2014-2017. This is not covered by these ToR and if this is required with the agreement of NAO of the Government of Lesotho, the Commission will issue an addendum to the contract.

5. REPORTING Many of the issues to be addressed in section 2 should be assessed using existing sources of information and key stakeholder perspectives. The report should make clear where existing material has been used and acknowledge sources. Every effort should be made to avoid copy/pasting large amounts of text. Information should be presented succinctly. A list of source materials should be compiled. Wherever possible the source materials should be handed over to the Delegation for future reference purposes. The focus of the consultants' work should be on the conclusions and recommendations section with targeted and detailed advice for the EU delegation on how to tackle the environment and climate change in its next country strategy paper. The results of the study should be presented in the Country Environmental Profile in the format given below. The draft profile, in six hard copies (double-sided printing) and electronic version (Microsoft Word), should be presented to the National Authorising Officer (3 copies) and the EU Delegation (3 copies) by 31 May 2012 at the latest. Within four weeks, comments on the draft report will be received from the relevant authorities and the EUD. The consultants will take account of these comments in preparing the final report (maximum 45 pages excluding appendices). The final report in English and six copies (double-sided printing) is to be submitted by 15 July 2012. Report format for a Country Environmental Profile (Maximum length (excluding appendices): 45 pages.) The following text appears on the inside front cover of the report: This report is financed by the European Union and is presented by (name of consultant) for the National Authorising Officer, Lesotho, and the European Union Delegation. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of NAO or the European Union. Structure of the report:

1. Summary The summary should succinctly and clearly present the key issues described in the profile following the order of headings 2 to 6 given below. The summary should not exceed 6 pages.

2. State of the environment, trends and pressures

3. Environmental policy, legislative and institutional framework 3.1 Environmental policy 3.2 Environmental legislation and institutional framework

12

4. Climate change implications

5. Integration of environmental concerns into the main policies and sectors

6. EU and other donor cooperation with the country from an environmental perspective

7. Conclusions and recommendations

8. Country Strategy Paper environmental annex summary

Comprising the main issues presented in sections 2 to 6 above (excluding section 7) in no more than 4 pages.

9. Technical Appendices I. Environmental maps of the country II. Reference list of environmental policy documents, statements and action plans, and other relevant technical information.

10. Other Appendices

I. Study methodology/work plan (1–2 pages) II. Consultants’ itinerary (1–2 pages)

III. List of persons/organisations consulted with their affiliation and contact details (1–2 pages)

IV. List of participants in workshop (if organised) V. List of documentation consulted (1–2 pages) VI. Curriculum vitae of the consultants (1 page per person) VII. Terms of Reference for the Country Environmental Profile 6. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

� No subcontracting � Other authorized items to foresee under ‘Reimbursable’:

o Provision for a 2 one-day workshops o Provision for in-country travel

download | europa - europa - european union website, the

Documents